R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345 Hearing dates: 06 November 2023 Date of orders: 06 November 2023 Decision date: 08 November 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Weinstein J Decision: Verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible entered pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 Catchwords: CRIME – murder – defence of mental health impairment – where parties agree defence available – court satisfied that evidence satisfies defence established – offence proven but the accused not criminally responsible Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 Cases Cited: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68 R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931 R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293 R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (Crown) Louis Woodham (Accused) Representation: Counsel: N Keay (Crown) S Fraser (Accused)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused) File Number(s): 2021/169252 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. The accused, Louis Woodham, stands charged with the murder of Denise Brameld contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. On 29 August 2022, Hamill J conducted a fitness hearing and on 30 August 2022 found that Mr Woodham was unfit to be tried pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act), and that he may become fit to be tried within 12 months pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the Act. His Honour referred the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) pursuant to s 49(1) of the Act, and remanded him in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act: see R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154. On 3 January 2023, the MHRT determined that Mr Woodham was not fit to be tried for the offence for which he was found unfit and would not become fit to be tried within 12 months after Hamill J's finding of 30 August 2022. The matter was therefore listed for special hearing. 2. The accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental health impairment. The Crown Prosecutor and the accused's counsel advised the Court of their agreement, for the purpose of s 31 of the Act, that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment pursuant to s 28 of the Act. 3. I therefore conducted a special hearing on 6 November 2023 to determine whether or not the evidence established a defence of mental health impairment. I was so satisfied and entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible pursuant to s 31 of the Act. I then made further orders and directions. 4. I am grateful to Ms Keay who appeared on behalf of the Crown, and to Mr Fraser who appeared on behalf of the accused, for the collaborative manner in which they conducted these proceedings. As I explained to the various persons who were in attendance and online, the purpose of this special hearing was so that I could consider the agreed position of the Crown and the accused by carefully examining the evidence that was put before me. I explained that this was not a trial by judge alone, and was neither adversarial nor accusatorial. Rather, it was an inquiry instigated by the parties at an early stage to obviate the need for a lengthy and costly trial, when both the prosecution and the defence believe that on the available evidence, a defence of mental health impairment was established. It is for the court to find facts and to apply ss 4 and 28 of the Act to determine whether or not the court is satisfied that the defence of mental health impairment is made out on the balance of probabilities. 5. This was not a judge alone trial in the sense prescribed by s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. I am not required to expose my reasoning process linking the principles of law with the facts found and which justify the verdict I have reached: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68. However, in the interests of transparency and in conformity with the principle of open justice, what follows are my reasons for making the orders and directions on 6 November 2023.