REGINA v Christopher Alan DANIELS [2005] NSWSC 745

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : REGINA v Christopher Alan DANIELS [2005] NSWSC 745

HEARING DATE(S) : 24 June 2005, 27, 28, 29, 30 June, 1, 4, 7, 22 July 2005, Order: 10 August 2005

JUDGMENT DATE : 22 July 2005

JURISDICTION : COMMON LAW

JUDGMENT OF : Mathews AJ

DECISION : I formally enter verdict that Christopher Alan Daniels is not guilty of murdering Anthony John Wood on the ground of mental illness; the formal order I make pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act is that Christopher Alan Daniels be detained in a psychiatric hospital within the prison system until released by due process of law.

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 Mental Health (Criminal Proceedure) Act 1990

REGINA - Crown PARTIES : Christopher Alan DANIELS - Accused

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2004/3166

Crown: A J Robertson COUNSEL : Accused: W Barber with Mr M Smith

Crown: S C Kavanagh SOLICITORS : Accused: I Rolfe

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : H19078850

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : J Huber

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL

MATHEWS AJ

22 July 2005

2004/3166 REGINA v Christopher Alan DANIELS REASONS FOR VERDICT 1 HER HONOUR: On 27 June 2005 Christopher Alan Daniels was arraigned before me on a charge that on 7 October 2003 at Sydney he murdered Anthony John Wood. He pleaded not guilty to this charge. He had previously signed an election, pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, to have the trial conducted by a judge alone, and the Crown had consented to this course. 2 The killing of the deceased took place shortly before midnight on 6 October 2003 at Regimental Square, Sydney city. This square runs between George Street and Carrington Street near Martin Place. The deceased, a street dweller, was asleep on a ventilation grille when he was struck on the head several times with a blunt instrument. Considerable force must have been used, for the injuries were very severe. His skull was fractured and the brain surface was torn and bruised. A passer-by saw the deceased, with blood around his head, at about 12.40 am on 7 October. He immediately rang the police and the ambulance, but by that time the deceased was already dead. 3 Police enquiries elicited accounts of a man who had been seen walking in the City a little earlier, carrying a sledgehammer. At about 4.00 am the accused was seen walking northwards in George Street, towards Regimental Square. He had nothing in his hands at the time, but he fitted the description of the man who had earlier been seen carrying the sledge-hammer. He was apprehended by the police at the corner of Bathurst and George Streets, and taken to the Rocks Police Station. There he telephoned his solicitor, Mr Rolfe. He declined to make any comments pending Mr Rolfe's arrival at the Police Station. However he did volunteer the following information: "I am not trying to hide anything. I was at home anyway all night. I couldn't sleep so I walked down to the Mobil Service Station on George Street and bought a United Dairy Farmers Milk and then walked into the city." 4 After seeking legal advise, the accused again declined to answer any questions. 5 At 3.20 that afternoon, investigating police went with the accused to his then residence at 1/15 Sloane Street, Summer Hill. This was a room in a boarding house. Before they arrived, the owners had sought to evict the accused by throwing his belongings into a pile beside the driveway. The police went through these belongings and also went into the accused's room, but they found nothing of relevance to the investigation. 6 At about 5.30 pm on 7 October the accused was released from police custody as there was insufficient evidence to charge him. 7 The following day, 8 October 2003, the accused was arrested at his parents' home at Balgowlah in circumstances I shall describe later. It was suspected that he might be mentally ill, and he was taken to the psychiatric unit of Manly Hospital (generally known as "East Wing") where he remained under observation for two days. In the meantime, a forensic examination of the shoes the accused was wearing when he was arrested on 7 October, returned a positive screening test to blood. Subsequent analysis showed that the blood on the accused's shoes exactly matched the DNA profile of the victim. Accordingly, when the accused was discharged from Manly Hospital, at 9.30 am on 10 October 2003, he was immediately arrested and taken to Manly Police Station. Later that morning an ERISP interview took place during which the accused made full admissions as to the killing of the deceased. He told police where he had put the sledgehammer after the killing. Police went to this location and found the sledgehammer in precisely the position described by the accused. 8 Later that afternoon the accused accompanied the police to the Macdonaldtown Railway Station and showed them where he had found the sledgehammer which he later used to strike the deceased. They then went to Regimental Square where the accused described striking the deceased with the sledgehammer and gave an account of his subsequent movements. All of this was recorded by way of video recording, and was played back in court. 9 There was no issue at the trial as to the identity of the accused as the killer of the deceased. Nor was there any issue as to the mental element of murder, namely that he intended at the time to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon me to make a finding on this matter. In the light of the DNA evidence and the admissions made by the accused, I have no difficulty in finding, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused killed the deceased intending at the time to kill him or to inflict grievous bodily harm. 10 The only issue remaining is the mental state of the accused at the time of the killing. In this regard, the primary defence raised by the accused was that he was not guilty by reason of mental illness. Alternatively a defence of "substantial impairment" under s 23A of the Crimes Act was raised. However this was very much a fallback position. The primary focus throughout the trial was on the defence of mental illness. 11 In order to discuss this issue I need to say something more about the background of the accused and his actions leading up to the killing and immediately after it.