Regina v Scott Ashley Simpson [2004] NSWSC 233

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Scott Ashley Simpson [2004] NSWSC 233 revised - 13/04/2004 HEARING DATE(S) : 23/3/04, 24/3/04, 25/3/04, 26/3/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 31 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1 DECISION : Not guilty of the murder of Andrew Mark Parfitt by reason of mental illness; To be detained in strict custody in a correctional centre within the meaning of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.

LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Mental Health Act 1990 PARTIES : Regina Scott Ashley Simpson (Accused) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70030/03 COUNSEL : Mr T Hoyle SC (Crown) Ms C Davenport (Accused) SOLICITORS : S Kavanagh Sachs Gerace Lawyers (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Wednesday 31 March 2004

70030/03 REGINA v Scott Ashley SIMPSON

JUDGMENT 1 BELL J: On 23 March 2004 Scott Ashley Simpson was arraigned before me on an indictment that charged him with the murder of Andrew Mark Parfitt on 30 March 2002 at Silverwater.

2 Prior to his arraignment the accused elected, in accordance with the provisions of s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), to be tried by judge alone. A signed form of election dated 22 March 2004 is in evidence. The Director of Public Prosecutions consented to the election. I was informed by Ms Davenport, who appeared on the accused's behalf, that prior to making the election the accused had sought and received advice from her and from her instructing solicitor in respect of it. I was satisfied of the matters to which s 132(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act directs attention and that the provisions of s 132(3) and (4) had been complied with. The trial proceeded before me alone. 3 Upon his arraignment the accused pleaded that he was, "Not guilty. Not guilty on the basis of I was insane at the time. Your Honour." This was a plea that he was not guilty of the offence charged in the indictment. It served to foreshadow the principal issue in the trial. 4 I was informed that the accused consented to the tender of witness statements without the need for the makers of the statements to give oral evidence. The accused had no objection to expert medical evidence being called by the Crown in reply. This was a convenient course since he intended to give evidence and his counsel wished the doctors to have the benefit of seeing him give evidence. In light of the terms of the accused's plea which I have set out above and given that he was represented by experienced counsel I was satisfied that the accused's consent to the waiver of provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) was effective.