R v Trinne (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1457

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Trinne (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1457 Hearing dates: 11-12 November 2024 Date of orders: 12 November 2024 Decision date: 15 November 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Weinstein J Decision: See [105] Catchwords: CRIME – murder – defence of mental health impairment – where parties agree defence available – Court satisfied that defence established – special verdict of act proven but defendant not criminally responsible Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 6, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 59, 79, 84, 109 Cases Cited: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68 Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500 R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931 R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292 R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293 R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064 R v Trinne [2023] NSWSC 1212 R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (Crown) Glenn Raymond Trinne (Accused) Representation: Counsel: B Campbell SC (Crown) S Apps (Accused)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) James Fuggle Rummery (Accused) File Number(s): 2022/00122511 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. The accused, Glenn Raymond Trinne, stands charged with the murder of Graham Priestly on or about 26 April 2022 contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. 2. On 9 October 2023, Dhanji J conducted a fitness hearing and found that the accused was unfit for trial pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 ("the Act"), but that the accused 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 ("the Tribunal") for further review pursuant to s 49(1) of the Act, adjourned the proceedings pending the determination of the Tribunal pursuant to s 47(2)(b) of the Act, and remanded the accused in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act: R v Trinne [2023] NSWSC 1212. 3. On 30 November 2023, the Tribunal determined that there was a possibility that the accused may become fit within 12 months of Dhanji J's finding of unfitness on 9 October 2023 (i.e. by 9 October 2024). However, on 11 April 2024 the Tribunal determined that the accused remained unfit to be tried and that he would not become fit by that date. 4. On 4 July 2024, the Crown advised the Court that the matter would be proceeding pursuant to s 53(2) of the Act. The matter was therefore listed for special hearing pursuant to s 55 of the Act. No election to have the matter determined by a jury was made by the defence and accordingly the special hearing was to be determined by a judge alone pursuant to s 56(9) of the Act. 5. The Crown 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. It is a condition of s 31 that the Court, after considering the proposed evidence, is also satisfied that the defence is established. 6. I therefore conducted a special hearing on 11 and 12 November 2024 to determine whether or not the evidence established a defence of mental health impairment. I was so satisfied and on 12 November 2024 entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible. I then made further orders and directions. 7. As I observed in R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345 at [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." 1. Nevertheless, 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 12 November 2024. 2. I am grateful to Mr Campbell SC who appeared on behalf of the Crown, and Mr Apps who appeared on behalf of the accused, for the collaborative manner in which they conducted these proceedings. 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. 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 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 defence of mental health impairment is made out on the balance of probabilities.