REGINA v DERBIN [2000] NSWCCA 361

REGINA v DERBIN [2000] NSWCCA 361

The Court was satisfied, applying Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s7(4) and the principles in R v Jenkins, that the appellant committed the acts charged but was mentally ill so as not to be responsible according to law at the time. Both psychiatrists accepted schizophrenia and agreed that, although the appellant knew the nature and quality of his acts, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. The ingestion of alcohol, cannabis and butane did not defeat the defence because it operated as a trigger or exacerbating factor on an underlying disease of the mind, and neither expert suggested that the substances alone caused the assault.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences After Jury Trial in the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; appellant ordered to be detained in strict custody until released by due process of law.
Legal Topics
['mental Illness Defence' "m'naghten Rules" 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 S7(4)' 'schizophrenia' 'drug and Alcohol Induced Psychosis' 'suffocating With Intent to Murder' 'maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'mental Health Law'] ['mental Illness Defence' "m'naghten Rules" 'criminal Appeal Act 1912 S7(4)' 'schizophrenia' 'drug and Alcohol Induced Psychosis' 'suffocating With Intent to Murder' 'maliciously Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences After Jury Trial in the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable having regard to the evidence on mental illness.' "Whether the Crown's alleged late disclosure of a change in its psychiatrist's opinion prejudiced the appellant's fair trial." 'Whether, under Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s7(4), the Court should quash the convictions because the appellant was mentally ill so as not to be responsible according to law at the time of the offences.' 'Whether the temporary effects of alcohol, cannabis and butane on an underlying schizophrenic condition could be taken into account in determining the defence of mental illness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied, applying Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s7(4) and the principles in R v Jenkins, that the appellant committed the acts charged but was mentally ill so as not to be responsible according to law at the time. Both psychiatrists accepted schizophrenia and agreed that, although the appellant knew the nature and quality of his acts, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. The ingestion of alcohol, cannabis and butane did not defeat the defence because it operated as a trigger or exacerbating factor on an underlying disease of the mind, and neither expert suggested that the substances alone caused the assault.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions and sentences quashed; appellant ordered to be detained in strict custody until released by due process of law.

Orders

  • ['Quash the convictions and sentences passed at trial.' 'Order that the appellant be detained in strict custody in the manner required under s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 in a secure prison psychiatric facility until released by due process of law.']