R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87

R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87

The majority (Brereton JA, Ierace J) found that the respondent, while suffering from sexsomnia and therefore acting involuntarily, did not have a 'disturbance of volition' within the meaning of s 4(1)(a) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Absence of volition while asleep was held not to be a disturbance of an ordinary condition but ordinary functioning, so the respondent did not have a 'mental health impairment' as required for the statutory defence. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to outright acquittal. Wilson J dissented, finding that a complete absence of volition can be a disturbance and that sexsomnia could constitute a mental...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Acquittal (criminal) / Court of Criminal Appeal (appeal From District Court Verdict)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (by majority); outright acquittal of respondent confirmed.
Legal Topics
['appeals Against Acquittal' 'automatism' 'mental Health Impairment' 'sexsomnia' 'voluntariness' 'interpretation of Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 2020 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health Law'] ['appeals Against Acquittal' 'automatism' 'mental Health Impairment' 'sexsomnia' 'voluntariness' 'interpretation of Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 2020 (nsw)']

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

Crown Appeal Against Acquittal (criminal) / Court of Criminal Appeal (appeal From District Court Verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether sexsomnia constitutes a 'mental health impairment' under s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)" "Whether an absence of volition is a 'disturbance of volition' within the meaning of s 4(1)(a) of the Act" 'Whether s 28 of the Act applies to unconscious or involuntary acts caused by a mental health impairment']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority (Brereton JA, Ierace J) found that the respondent, while suffering from sexsomnia and therefore acting involuntarily, did not have a 'disturbance of volition' within the meaning of s 4(1)(a) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Absence of volition while asleep was held not to be a disturbance of an ordinary condition but ordinary functioning, so the respondent did not have a 'mental health impairment' as required for the statutory defence. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to outright acquittal. Wilson J dissented, finding that a complete absence of volition can be a disturbance and that sexsomnia could constitute a mental...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (by majority); outright acquittal of respondent confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.']