Police v BELOFF [2015] NSWLC 33

Local Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Police v BELOFF [2015] NSWLC 33 Hearing dates: 16 October 2015 Date of orders: 30 October 2015 Decision date: 30 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Farnan LCM Decision: Discharged section 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Catchwords: Mental illness defence Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 s32 Crimes Act 1900 s51B Cases Cited: R v McMahon [2006] NSWDC 81 R v Meddings [1966] VR 306 R v Sandoval [2010] NSWDC 255 Mantell v Molyneux [2006] 68 NSWLR 46 R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 E.R. 718 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Police v Lana Beloff Representation: Prosecutor: Sgt Smith

Defendant: Mr McMahon File Number(s): 2014/00344432

JUDGMENT 1. Ms Beloff is now before the court for two offences alleged to have been committed in the early hours of the morning on 22 November 2014. 2. The first is an allegation that she drove when she should reasonably have known she was being pursued by police and was required to stop, and then drove in a manner dangerous to others. That is an offence contrary to section 51B of the Crimes Act. 3. The second is an allegation of dangerous driving. This offence is alleged to have taken place first in time, when the defendant was observed by police driving a black Audi southbound on Campbell Parade at Bondi beach. 4. Ms Beloff has pleaded not guilty. Her case is that she was mentally ill at the time the offences were allegedly committed, that is that she was operating under a defect of reason such that she did not know the nature and quality of her act, or that if she did, that she did not know that what she was doing was wrong. The onus in relation to mental illness is on the defence to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities. 5. Mr McMahon who appears for the defendant does not say that the prosecution cannot prove that her act in driving the car was voluntary. Rather, he says that she was suffering from a delusion caused by a disease of the mind, that is, that she was mentally ill, so as not to be responsible according to law for the consequences of her voluntary acts (R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 E.R. 718). 6. To satisfy this test, the state of mind must have been one of disease, disorder or disturbance arising from a condition which may be temporary or of long standing, and may be curable or incurable.