Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Illness: Case Summary

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Due to mental illness, the defendant was found unfit for trial and subsequently found not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court ordered the defendant to be detained in a correctional facility pending further assessment by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v [NAME] [2020] NSWDC 92 Hearing dates: 30 - 31 March 2020 Decision date: 08 April 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Special Hearing. For orders see [59] Catchwords: Multiple counts of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm; one count reckless wounding with intent to cause actual bodily harm; defence of not guilty by reason of mental illness; special verdict Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500 R v Kesavarajah (1994) 181 ALR at 246 R v Minani (2005) 63 NSW LR 490 R v M'Naghten [1943] 8 ER 718 R v Presser [1958] VR 45 R v Zdrakovic [2019] NSWSC 736 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) [NAME] (Offender) Representation: Counsel: [redacted] [NAME] (Offender)

Solicitors: [redacted] File Number(s): 2018/[PHONE]/00177969 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. On an amended Indictment dated 24 March 2020 the [NAME] was charged with the following offences:- Count 1 - On 5 June 2018, at Brookvale in the State of New South Wales, wounded [NAME] with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to [NAME]. This was an offence pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. Count 2 - On 6 June 2018, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, wounded [NAME] and was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to [NAME]. This was an offence pursuant to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900. In the alternative to Count 2: Count 3 - On 6 June 2018 at Sydney in the State of New South Wales, assaulted [NAME] thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to him. This was an offence pursuant to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. Count 4 - On 6 June 2018 in Sydney in the State of New South Wales, wounded [NAME] with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to [NAME]. This was an offence pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

1. The [NAME] was arrested on 6 June 2018. He has been in custody since that time and was committed to trial on 27 September 2018.

2. On 12 December 2018, His Honour Judge Pickering SC found the [NAME] unfit for trial and referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). On 18 October 2019 the MHRT determined that the [NAME] was then unfit and would not become fit within 12 months of the court's finding of unfitness. The matter was therefore listed for special hearing which took place on 30 and 31 March 2020.

3. The issues to be determined were whether the [NAME] had a defence of mental illness available, and whether he is not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Circumstances of the offending 1. At the special hearing the Crown case was documentary and the Crown bundle included an agreed summary of the Crown case which included an outline of the offending which maybe summarised as follows.

Count 1 – Wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm 1. At about 3.30pm on Tuesday 5 June 2018 at Brookvale, [NAME] met a friend at a bus stop on the eastern side of [ADDRESS]. [NAME] noticed the [NAME] standing behind a building pillar. The [NAME] was wearing a reddish bucket hat and a hoodie. 2. [NAME] and his friend walked across [ADDRESS]. The [NAME] was seen to run up behind [NAME] and stab him in the back in his right shoulder where [NAME] suffered a wound. The [NAME] ran away. 3. [NAME] was taken to Royal North Shore Hospital via ambulance and had suffered a 3cm longitudinal laceration between the ribs on the upper back overlaying his scapula. The wound was closed with 3 sutures.

4. CCTV footage from the nearby Warringah Mall showed the [NAME] in the area at the time wearing clothing described by witnesses.

5. The [NAME] was found to be in possession of that clothing the following day.

Count 2 and the alternative Count 3 1. At about 7.30am on Wednesday 6 June 2018, [NAME] was delivering bottles of water to premises in the [ADDRESS]. The [NAME] approached him and asked him for a cigarette, when [NAME] declined to give him a cigarette the [NAME] asked him about a tattoo on his face by saying, "what's the teardrop meant to be on your face? Is that your gang? What's your fucken gang's name?" 2. [NAME] told the [NAME] the "fuck off" and saw him walk away. 3. [NAME] made his delivery and when he returned to his truck for a second load, the [NAME] approached [NAME] and stuck him on the head. [NAME] fell unconscious to the ground. When he regained consciousness a woman told him, "You've been king hit and he had ran off in that direction", meaning towards the GPO. CCTV footage of the area showed the [NAME] leaving the area by going through the QVB building. 4. [NAME] was treated at the Prince of Wales Hospital for a soft tissue injury at the right side of his face (contusion) and to his neck (superficial abrasions). He suffered a laceration to his lip and his inner lip wound was closed with sutures.

Count 4 1. At about 1.30pm on Wednesday 6 June 2018 [NAME] saw the [NAME] sitting by himself at a bus stop near Wynyard. [NAME] joined a queue for the bus to Manly. The [NAME] was observed to approach him from behind in the queue and stabbed him 3 or 4 times around his neck. [NAME] touched the area and noticed blood on his hand. He saw the [NAME] run up stairs to [ADDRESS] and gave chase however he lost the [NAME] and returned to the bus stop where he was rendered assistance and a witness agreed to accompany police officers back to City Central Police Station to provide a statement. Along the way that witness recognised the [NAME] who was then stopped by Police and arrested.

2. The initial interactions between Police and the [NAME] were recorded on body worn video. When asked about the incident the [NAME] said, "I am doing every job for the voices". When asked did he have anything to say about the stabbing he said "I have got schizophrenia. They made me do it. They wanted me to do it". He told the police he did the stabbings because the victims, "raped my girlfriend" and/or "they threatened to rape my girlfriend". The [NAME] also told Police he has schizophrenia and that he was a member of the French Foreign Legion.

3. The [NAME] told police that he had the knife in a garden bed near Wynyard and offered to show them where the knife was located. He volunteered to police that the knife had been used by him twice, once at Wynyard and once the day before in Brookvale. After the knife was located the [NAME] admitted that it was the knife that had been used by him at Brookvale.

The [NAME]'s ERISP interview 1. The [NAME] participated in an ERISP interview following his arrest in the presence of a support person. During that interview he told Police that he was a hired [NAME] and had done what he had been told to do by voices. He told Police that he was schizophrenic and that he had been working for a government agency. He further told Police that he was wearing a US Marine hat and that it was a hired hit from the US Marines.

2. The [NAME] admitted that the knife that was found was used by him to stab the [NAME] at the bus stop and it was also used by him to stab the [NAME] at Brookvale the day before. He also told Police that he was part of the French Foreign Legion, as well as the US Army.

3. The Crown bundle contained the witness statements, photographs, expert certificates and police statements to establish the actus reus in respect to each of the offences in counts 1, 2 (and alternative Count 3) and Count 4 on the Indictment. It also contained video discs of CCTV footage of the incidents comprising counts 1 and 4, and of the ERISP interview, which I have viewed.

4. The Crown bundle also contained two reports of [NAME] dated 14 November 2018 and 13 February 2020. In the first of those reports, [NAME] provided his opinion on each of what are known as the Presser criteria (R v Presser (1958) VR 45, R v Kesavarajah (1994) 181 ALR 246) and concluded that the [NAME] at that time was unfit to plead and unfit to stand trial on the Indictment as it then stood. 5. [NAME] was qualified by the [NAME] and set out the circumstances of the offending he had derived from his initial interview with the [NAME] some 5 months after the offences took place. He reinterviewed the [NAME] some 19 months later on 7 February 2020 for the purpose of his report dated 13 February 2020. He took a history that at the time of the offending the [NAME] had claimed that he was starting to go "psychotic". His girlfriend had been imprisoned and upon her release they had argued. He had gone to Brookvale on 5 June 2018 looking for his girlfriend and had been commanded by voices to attack [NAME] "to stop him seeing his girlfriend". The voices told him that he was from the French Legion and the US Army. He had bought the knife one month prior to that date and had it in his bag. After he stabbed the [NAME] he ran away and caught a bus to the city and slept on the street.

6. The following morning he woke up and began to look for a cigarette on [ADDRESS] when he saw a guy with tear drop tattoos on his face. [NAME] took a history that the [NAME] asked the [NAME] what the tattoos meant and the [NAME] told him to fuck off. The [NAME] walked away however he heard voices saying "go back and hit him" and he recalled punching the [NAME] in the face and then running away. 7. [NAME] took a history that later that day the [NAME] followed a [NAME] to Wynyard Station. The voices told him to stop the [NAME] getting on to the bus that goes to the northern beaches. The voices were demanding that he stab the [NAME] and the [NAME] recalled stabbing him in the back 5 or 6 times. At the time he believed he was in the Foreign Legion and the US Army, and that the voices were "overpowering". The [NAME] claimed the voices told him to stab the [NAME] because this [NAME] had raped and had underage sex. He ran away but was shortly thereafter arrested by police and taken to the police station. When asked by [NAME] whether he believed his actions were right or wrong at the time of the alleged offences, the [NAME] claims that he did not know but that he was "going with the voices".

8. On mental state examination the [NAME] reported ongoing persistent auditory hallucinations. He reported occasionally having visual hallucinations and continued to suffer from residual paranoid delusions secondary to his hallucinations. [NAME] noted that "his insight was fair in regards to his mental illness and need for psychiatric medication." 9. [NAME] reviewed the custody management record of the NSW Police and the [NAME]'s ERISP interview. He diagnosed the offender as suffering a chronic schizophrenia disorder ("CSD") with treatment resistant psychotic symptoms and past usage of substance disorder (crystal methamphetamines amongst other substances). [NAME] noted that the [NAME] had a lengthy treatment resistant schizophrenia over many years and had previously been admitted to various psychiatric units and psychiatric hospitals over 25 times prior to the alleged offences. He was under the care of the Brookvale Community Health Centre and had his community treatment order renewed on 14 February 2018. Just prior to the alleged offences, the [NAME] had reportedly ceased his oral anti-psychotic medication and he was late for his Depot injection. He had also used crystal methamphetamine on three occasions in the three months prior to the alleged offences. 10. [NAME] noted that the [NAME] reported experiencing active symptoms of a relapse and exacerbation of this schizophrenia illness at the time of the alleged offences. The evidence of the police officers, the ERISP interview and Justice Health records all support that he was suffering from active symptoms of psychosis (hallucinations, delusions and thought disorder) shortly after his arrest and detention. The facts outlined above supported the bizarre psychotic nature of the offences as did the fact that the victims were apparently strangers. 11. [NAME] opined that the [NAME] qualified for the legal concept of "disease of the mind" at the time of the alleged offences. He was also of the opinion that at the time of the alleged offences, the [NAME] was "labouring under defected reason caused by disease of the mind". 12. [NAME] also opined that it was likely that the [NAME] did know the nature of the quality of his act at the time of the alleged offences and that the act was legally wrong, given that he ran away from the scenes and allegedly hid the knife after the stabbing in the city. However, he was of the opinion of the [NAME] did not know that the act was morally wrong at the time of each of the offences. He was acting from a psychotic mind where he was controlled by voices and acting on delusional psychotic beliefs which lacked in any reality. [NAME] was of the opinion that the [NAME]'s defect of reason revolved around his psychotic belief system caused by his pre-existing and exacerbated symptoms of active mental illness. He therefore opined that it is likely the offender has the defence of a mental illness available to him and was likely suffering from a mental illness so as not to be responsible for his actions in accordance with the test set down in R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718.

13. Finally, [NAME] noted that the offender was currently compliant with his current medication regime and under the care of the Justice Health treating psychiatrists. He still hears voices which give him commands and has visual hallucinations.

14. The Crown bundle also contained two reports of [NAME], Forensic Psychiatrist was qualified by the solicitor for the [NAME]. The first report dated 16 September 2018 was prepared for the purpose of the [NAME]'s fitness hearing. [NAME] diagnosed the [NAME] as suffering from schizophrenia and opined that it was likely that a court would find him unfit to be tried.

15. In his second report dated 6 February 2020, [NAME] addressed the question of whether there was a defence available for the [NAME] to be found not guilty by reason of mental illness. [NAME] set out the psychiatric history of the [NAME] noting that he had first been admitted to a psychiatric hospital at the age of 18 and had estimated that he had 25 admissions since, the longest being for a period of six months. He had been on a community treatment order for many years and his last admission in November 2017 was prompted by non-compliance with his community treatment order. He suffered from chronic hallucinations and his last psychiatric assessment on 11 April 2018 noted that he was hearing voices . 16. [NAME] recorded an account of the offences on 5 and 6 June 2018. The [NAME] told him that he did not know why he did what he did. He had a vague memory of the events and told [NAME] that he attacked all of the complainants as that is what the voices told him to do. He believed at the time the US Army was doing cyborg testing on him. He believed that he had some vague knowledge of the first [NAME] as they lived in the same area and [NAME] was from New Zealand. The second [NAME] was completely unknown to him. Other than the voices telling him to stab them, he had no motive to interact with them. In giving that history the [NAME] was clearly referring to the offences in Counts 1 and 4 as there was no knife used in Count 2 or the alternative Count 3. After conducting a mental state examination and referring to the [NAME]'s ERISP interview, [NAME] stated that he remained of the opinion that the [NAME] met the criteria for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. He also had an historical Substance Use Disorder. 17. [NAME] opined that it was likely that a court would find the common law defence of not guilty by reason of a mental illness open to the [NAME]. He had a well established diagnosis of schizophrenia which was evidenced by multiple hospital admissions, treatment under the Mental Health Act and him being enrolled as a current patient of a community mental health service at the time of the offences. His condition was severe in that he had continuous symptoms of delusions and hallucinations coupled with poor insight. His presentation to police and custodial mental health services immediately after his arrest, was consistent with an acute episode of schizophrenia. Further, he had missed a dose of injectable medication just prior to the offending and he had a treatment resistant form of illness that did not respond adequately to ordinary doses of medications. 18. [NAME] noted that schizophrenia is generally considered a disease of the mind. The [NAME]'s symptoms were most likely active at the time of these offences. Whilst there was no substance use testing to confirm or deny the [NAME]'s account of no drug use at the time of the offending, in [NAME]' opinion, his symptoms were present whether or not there was substance abuse. Furthermore, the targeting of strangers in the street is typical of response to delusional beliefs in schizophrenia. 19. [NAME] also referred to the [NAME] reporting specific delusional beliefs and hallucinatory experiences that would be considered a defect of reasoning. He had a fixed firm belief that he was a [NAME], a member of the French Foreign Legion, a member of the United States Army and that he was experimented upon. [NAME] describes these as "typical delusions of persecution, grandiosity and precocity" and further opined that his delusional beliefs and hallucinatory experiences meant it is likely that he did not consider his actions morally wrong.

The Defence tender bundle 1. The [NAME] tendered a bundle of documents which became Exhibit 1. It included the following categories of documents:

1. Mental Health Review Tribunal determination and reasons dated 18 October 2019 2. Northern Beaches Community Health discharge summary dated 9 August 2018 3. Brookvale Community Health Centre medical records from July 2017 to July 2018.

4. Manly Hospital Medical Records from January 2014 to April 2018.

5. Justice Health Medical Records from June to July 2018.

1. Having perused the documents contained in Exs 1.2 to 1.5 above, counsel for the [NAME] was asked if she wish to flag any particular part of the medical records. It was submitted that the medical records were placed before the court to support the medical and psychiatric history outlined in the reports of [NAME] and [NAME], and thereby provided support for their concluded opinions. Having perused the documents, I accept that submission.

2. I have also read the determination and reasons therefore of the MHRT dated 18 October 2019.

The Crown Submissions 1. The Crown submitted there was no dispute in relation to the evidence in the Crown bundle and the offences in Counts 1, 2 and 4 were established beyond reasonable doubt. In respect of Count 1, the Crown submitted that the [NAME] targeted [NAME] as he was about to cross [ADDRESS] and ran up behind him and stabbed him in the back. The Crown submitted that the [NAME] deliberately targeted [NAME] and his ERISP admissions show that he meant to cause serious harm to him. In respect of Count 2, the Crown submitted that the [NAME] targeted [NAME] either because he declined to give up a cigarette or that he thought that [NAME] was in a gang. He deliberately attacked [NAME] when [NAME] was unaware of his approach and this was done to cause [NAME] an injury. It was submitted that [NAME] would have foreseen the reasonable possibility that [NAME] would have suffered actual bodily harm.

2. In respect of Count 4 the Crown submitted that the [NAME] targeted [NAME], ran up behind him and stabbed him 3 times in the back. The fact that he did so shows that he wished to cause [NAME] some serious injury which was confirmed by his ERISP comments.

3. Count 3 was an alternative to Count 2, in the event that the court was not satisfied that the [NAME] did reasonably foresee the possibility of causing [NAME] actual bodily harm. However, the Crown submitted that the court would find all the elements of Counts 1, 2 and 4 are established.

4. Finally, the Crown conceded that the expert evidence was unanimous in showing the [NAME] had a defence of a mental illness available to him. By taking the totality of the evidence into account, it was open to the court to find the [NAME] not guilty by reason of mental illness.

The defence submissions 1. Counsel for the [NAME] provided a detailed written outline of submissions regarding the special hearing procedure and supporting a submission that the [NAME] was not guilty by reason of mental illness. It was submitted that this defence arose if it was proved on the balance of probability at the time of the commission of the offences that the [NAME] was labouring under such a defect of reasoning, from disease of the mind that he did not know the nature and quality of the act and that he did not know what he was doing. The onus was on the defence to prove it.

2. It was submitted that the medical expert evidence was unanimous relating to the issue of mental illness. Section 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act ("MHFPA") provided for a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.

3. It was submitted that the common law definition of "mentally ill person" applies in New South Wales. As the term is not defined in the MHFPA, the applicable definition in NSW derives from R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718.

4. It was submitted that in order to sustain a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness, the tribunal of fact must be satisfied that; 1. "The [NAME] was labouring under a defect of reason caused by disease of the mind;

2. As a result of which the [NAME] did not know of the nature and quality of his or her act; or 3. If he or she did know of the nature and quality of the act, he or she did not know that it was wrong."

1. The [NAME] had been diagnosed with chronic schizophrenia disorder treatment-resistant psychotic symptoms and a Substance Use Disorder. The submissions then summarised the findings and opinions of [NAME] and [NAME] as set out above.

2. The [NAME] submitted correctly that counts 1 and 4, (wound with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm) pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 are crimes of specific intent. Counsel then referred to R v Minani (2005) 63 NSW LR 490 in which the Court of Criminal Appeal discussed the approach to be taken by a court in considering mental illness in an offence of specific intent, and at [32] in accordance with the High Court's decision in Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500 stated the order in which issues should be determined in a case where there is evidence of mental illness is as follows: 1. "Was it the act of the [NAME] which, in this case, cause the malicious wounding? 2. Was he criminally responsible for doing that act? 3. Was that act done with the specific intention required?"

1. The court held that the second question is resolved by a finding that a mental illness had been established. The third question arose only if the second question is answered adversely to the [NAME] and in those circumstances, the evidence of mental illness (even though insufficient to make out the defence) is relevant to the issue of specific intent.

2. Counsel submitted that if the court finds that the [NAME] is not guilty by reason of mental illness, the court is required by s 39 of the MHFPA in making a determination regarding the [NAME]'s immediate future. The court has power to order that the person be detained, or released conditionally or unconditionally in the event of ordering detention or conditional release. The court must also advise the MHRT which will thereafter make orders regarding treatment, care, detention and release of the person who will become a "forensic patient".

Determination 1. In R v Zdrakovic [2019] NSWSC 736, Walton J set out the following general principles to be applied in a case where an [NAME] raised a defence of mental illness: "(5) Button J observed in R v Gourlay [2015] NSWSC 67" at [50]: 'If the Crown were to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt that the [NAME] voluntarily (without reference to any mental illness) did an act that caused the death of the deceased, I would then turn to the defence of mental illness. Although the defence is referred to in s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act"), it is not defined by statute. Its elements were set out well over 150 years ago in M'Naghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718 at 722 …' (6) In order to establish a defence on the grounds of mental illness, it must be established that, at the time of committing the act causing the deceased's death, the [NAME] was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the quality and the nature of the act that he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong. (7) A person does not know the nature and quality of his act if he does not know the physical nature of what he is doing or the implications of it (see R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 ("Porter") at 188). A person does not know what he was doing was wrong when he does not know that it is wrong according to ordinary standards of right and wrong adopted by reasonable persons: see Porter at 190 and Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358 at 367. (8) The test under the second limb of that definition was stated by Dixon J in Porter (at 189-190) in the following terms: 'The question is whether he was able to appreciate the wrongness of the particular act he was doing at the particular time. Could this [NAME] be said to know, in this sense, whether his act was wrong if, through a disease or defect or disorder of the mind, he could not think rationally of the reasons which, to ordinary people make, that act right or wrong? If, through the disordered condition of the mind, he could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure, it may be said that he could not know that what he was doing was wrong. What is meant by wrong? What is meant by wrong is wrong having regard to the everyday standards of reasonable people.' (9) A disease of the mind is any disease which is capable of affecting the mind, irrespective of whether it has a mental or physical origin and irrespective of whether or not the defect of reason caused is temporary or permanent. However, it does not include the transitory effects of some application of an external factor such as violence or drugs or a psychological trauma to an otherwise healthy mind (see R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 at 75). (10) The onus of proving the defence is on the [NAME], who must prove it on the balance of probabilities: Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659 at 664. If the medical evidence relating to the issue of mental illness is unanimous, that evidence cannot be rejected by the tribunal of fact in the absence of other material which casts some doubt on it: Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149 at 160-161."

1. His Honour then went on at [11] to refer to R v Minani, supra, and the High Court decision in Hawkins v R referred to above. Applying the relevant principles to the present case, I must determine if it was the act of the [NAME] in respect to each charge, and then move on to consider whether the [NAME] was criminally responsible for doing that act.

2. In respect of each of the offences in Counts I, 2 and 4 the immediate surrounding circumstances of the wounding of [NAME] in counts 1, 2 and 4 are conveyed by uncontested and agreed evidence as set out above. Further, [NAME] and [NAME] agreed that the [NAME] met the criteria for the following diagnoses:

1. Schizophrenia;

2. Substance use disorder 1. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I accept their opinion that the [NAME] suffered a disease of the mind at the time of the alleged offences and that he was labouring under a defect of reason caused by disease of the mind. On the balance of probability, I accept the opinions outlined above by both [NAME] and [NAME] that the [NAME] was suffering specific delusional beliefs and hallucinatory experiences from which he had a fixed and firm belief that he was a [NAME], a member of the French Foreign Legion and a member of the US Army and that he acted in the way he did in respect to each offence upon having been told to do so by the voices in his head. I am therefore satisfied that the defence of not guilty by reason of mental illness has been made out and I find the [NAME] was mentally ill at the time of each of the offences and must be found not guilty of each of the offences in counts 1, 2 and 4.

2. As a result of that finding, there is no need for me to consider the alternative to Count 3 on the Indictment.

3. Having found the [NAME] not guilty by reason of mental illness, the court is required by s 39 of the MHFPA to make a determination regarding the [NAME]'s immediate future. Section 39 provides as follows: "39 Effect of finding and declaration of mental illness (1) If, on the trial of a person charged with an offence, the jury returns a special verdict that the [NAME] person is not guilty by reason of mental illness, the Court may order that the person be detained in such place and in such manner as the Court thinks fit until released by due process of law or may make such other order (including an order releasing the person from custody, either unconditionally or subject to conditions) as the Court considers appropriate. (2) [ADDRESS] is not to make an order under this section for the release of a person from custody unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the safety of the person or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by the person's release. (3) As soon as practicable after the making of an order under this section, the Registrar of the Court is to notify the Tribunal of the terms of the order."

1. The Crown sought an order pursuant to s 39 that the [NAME] be detained in a correctional facility and Counsel for the [NAME] did not oppose such an order. Having regard to the medical evidence referred to above the [NAME] requires ongoing assertive psychiatric care from the Justice Health Forensic Services. ORDERS 1. I make the following orders:

1. I find [NAME] not guilty of Count 1, that on 5 June 2018, at Brookvale in the State of New South Wales he wounded [NAME] with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to [NAME] pursuant to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 by reason of mental illness.

2. I find [NAME] not guilty of Count 2 on the Indictment that on 6 June 2018, at Sydney in the State of New South Wales he wounded [NAME] and was reckless as to causing actual bodily harm to [NAME] pursuant to s35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 by reason of mental illness.

3. I find [NAME] not guilty of Count 4 that on 6 June 2018 in Sydney in the State of New South Wales he wounded [NAME] with intent to cause grievous bodily harm to [NAME] pursuant to s33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 by reason of mental illness.

4. Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I order that the [NAME] be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.

5. I direct the Registrar to notify the Attorney General, the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these orders as soon as practicable.

6. The Registrar is to provide the Tribunal with a copy of my reasons and of the reports of [NAME] and [NAME] referred to herein.

**********

Amendments 08 April 2020 - Cover Page - Name of Solicitor amended to read [NAME] ([NAME]) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 April 2020