New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : R v Paul Edwin RENETE [2006] NSWSC 166 HEARING DATE(S) : 13/03/06 JUDGMENT DATE : 22 March 2006 JUDGMENT OF : Newman AJ DECISION : Refer para 24 CATCHWORDS : Criminal Law - Accused found not guilty on the ground of mental illness LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995 CASES CITED : R v Mc Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200 Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358 PARTIES : REGINA Paul Edwin RENETE FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 1624/05 COUNSEL : Mr P. Barnett (Crown) Ms M. Zahra (Solicitor) (Accused) SOLICITORS : Mr G. Whitaker (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (Accused) - 4 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION ACTING JUSTICE NEWMAN 22 March 2006 1624/05 REGINA v Paul Edwin RENETE JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: Paul Edwin Renete has been indicted for the murder of Tracy Hollis at Erina in this State on or about the 19th February 2005. To that charge he has pleaded not guilty and has raised a defence of mental illness. 2 Pursuant to section 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act he has elected to be tried by a judge alone and the Crown has consented to that election. 3 Additionally, he has pursuant to section 184 of the Evidence Act 1995 admitted in writing that he committed the act which caused the death of Tracy Hollis. In open court he orally confirmed that admission. 4 It is thus my task to find the facts of the matter and to determine first, if the Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that the admitted act of the accused in killing Tracy Hollis falls within the ambit of the crime of murder. Second, if so, has the accused established on a balance of probabilities his defence of mental illness within the framework of the Mc Naghten rules. 5 My task in finding the facts relating to the killing of Tracy Hollis has been assisted by the tender of the Crown of a statement of facts the contents of which were not challenged by Ms Zahra, solicitor who appeared for the accused. Since reserving my decision I have read the case statements and materials tendered by the Crown as its case. Having done so, I find the Crown case statement is an accurate account of the facts relating to the killing of Tracy Hollis by the accused and I have adopted the bulk of that statement as my findings of fact. I thus find as follows:- At the time of death of Tracy Hollis, the accused was living at her residence at 9/2 Ernest Street Erina, with her son, Daniel Hourihan. The accused was a friend of the deceased's son. At the time of the death of the deceased, the accused had been occupying a spare bedroom in the house, as he was destitute. About 9.30am on the 20 February 2005, the accused was located at the corner of Ernest Street and The Entrance Road, Erina. He had been riding his bicycle from the deceased's premises and collapsed. The accused was seen to be suffering a large laceration to his neck – straight across his throat. There were a number of people around at the time, as the local Central Coast Evangelical Church had commenced a service. Churchgoers came to the accused's aid and observed his injuries. A male person asked the accused "Who did this to you?" and the accused replied, "I did this to myself". Dr Hunter had also been at the church that morning and attended to the accused. He checked the accused's vitals and communicated with him. Ambulance personnel attended and the accused confirmed to ambulance officer Lanning that his injury was self-inflicted. The accused was conveyed to Gosford Hospital. Once at Gosford Hospital the accused received immediate surgery to his neck and medical staff then discovered that the accused had also suffered lacerations to his penis and right wrist. The accused was later transferred to Royal North Shore Hospital where surgery was performed to his right wrist. He was then returned to Gosford Hospital for continued care follow up treatment. Whilst at Gosford Hospital the accused told Dr Franksih (a psychiatrist employed by the Department of Health) that his wounds were self-inflicted. It also became apparent to Dr Frankish that the accused was a long-term sufferer of mental illness. Police attended 19/2 Ernest Street, Erina and discovered the deceased in the rear bedroom of the premises with a large laceration to her throat. This was the bedroom previously occupied by the accused. The house at 19/2 Ernest Street, Erina was extensively covered in blood. The body of the deceased was conveyed to Newcastle morgue where Dr Lee performed a post mortem examination. This examination revealed the deceased died as a result of a large laceration to her throat. Dr Lee is of the opinion that the offender who committed these wounds was left-handed; the accused is known to be left-handed. A formal interview was conducted with the accused on the 3 March 2005, while at Gosford Hospital, where the accused exercised his right of silence. The accused was later transferred to the Gunyah Unit of the Wyong Hospital. On the 13 April 2005 a search warrant was executed at the Wyong Hospital and the medical records for the accused were obtained. The records suggest that the accused suffers from a mental illness. On the 28 April 2005 the accused was arrested at the Gubyah Unit of Wyong Hospital (after receiving the appropriate medical releases) and conveyed back to Gosford Police Station and informed of his rights way of Part 10A in the presence of his mother. He then stated that he did not wish to be interviewed at that time. Forensic, scientific examinations and neighbour's reports suggest that an altercation occurred in the deceased's residence at around 10.00pm on the 19th February 2005. From the scientific examinations conducted at the residence the deceased appears to have been attacked inside the front door of the premises and from that point, the deceased was able to move to the spare bedroom where she died as a result of the knife injury to her throat, which Dr Lee (forensic pathologist) states , "…involved all the major structures of the anterior part of the neck, and would be expected to be both inevitably and rapidly fatal" . In addition to the fatal wound to the deceased's neck, the deceased presented with a number of superficial knife wounds and blunt impact injuries, which Dr Lee suggests were " consistent with a scuffle and possibly associated with falls ". Dr Lee estimates that the deceased died around 12.00 midnight. It is alleged that after the death of the deceased, the accused moved about the house for some hours. At around 8.45am on the 20th February the accused was seen standing at the front door of the premises. He acknowledged passers-by and went back into the residence. It is further alleged that a short time later, the accused inflicted injuries upon himself that were later seen by witnesses who came to his assistance and by medical staff. A short time later before 9.30am on the 20th February 2005, the accused wrapped a sheet around himself and rode his bicycle down to where he was located at the corner of Ernest Street and The Entrance Road, Erina. 6 In the absence of the defence of mental illness I find that the Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime of murder against the accused. 7 However, as I have said, the accused has raised a defence of mental illness. That defence is primarily based upon the opinion of Drs Michael Giuffrida and Bruce Westmore, forensic psychiatrists, who were retained by the accused's solicitors. Another forensic psychiatrist, Dr Olaf Neilson, who was engaged by the Crown, supported a Mc Naghten defence. 8 The defence of mental illness, as it is now described, was defined in the celebrated case of R v Mc Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200. As I have indicated earlier in these reasons the onus is upon the accused to establish this defence on a balance of probabilities. As a matter of law it is for the accused to establish that at the time when he committed the act which caused the death of Tracy Hollis that as a result of a defect of reason from a disease of the mind he did not: (a) appreciate the true nature and quality of that physical act; or (b) that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. 9 In Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358 at 375 the High Court held that "wrong" in this context means wrong according to ordinary standards adopted by reasonable men. 10 What then are the opinions of Drs Giuffrida and Westmore? Both of these practitioners obtained similar histories from the accused and from medical records. I have no reason to doubt that the histories that they obtained are anything other than correct. I summarise those histories as follows:- 11 The accused was first seen by a psychiatrist when he was 16 years of age. That consultation followed an episode in which he caused extensive damage to his mother's home. 12 He was then admitted to the Mandala clinic for psychiatric treatment. In fact over the years he had no less than three admissions to that institution. 13 He has a long history of drug abuse. I should add that he is still a very young man, having been born on 13th May 1985. He begun using cannabis at the age of 12 and it seems has spent a greater part of his life; when not in a mental health institution, or since February 2005 in prison, intoxicated by that drug. Furthermore, he had used amphetamines on a number of occasions and had engaged in binge drinking in the two years prior to the death of Tracy Hollis. 14 Over the years he has had delusional episodes. He first suffered an auditory hallucination in December 2003. They have continued since stating of female voices which he claimed had "taken over his mind'. He also experienced delusions relating to the occupants of motor vehicles and came to odd conclusions as to the relationships between these people and the number plates of the vehicles in which they were travelling. He has been prescribed a variety of medications designed to treat his psychiatric symptoms, including Zyprexa and Epilim. While living with his father in Queensland in 2004 he was administered the depot antipsychotic injection Risperidone Consta. However he ceased taking medication in June or July 2004 – over six months before he killed Tracy Hollis. 15 He has long been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia. Indeed both Drs Giuffrida and Westmore confirm that diagnosis. 16 Sadly, this Court is once more dealing with a case where a person suffering from a psychotic illness has ceased taking prescribed medication and as a consequence kills another. 17 As to the events which led to his attack upon the deceased his recollection to both doctors was vague. It seems that he believed that Tracy Hollis wished to commit suicide and that if he assisted her in so doing she would go to heaven and he to purgatory. His self-mutilation which followed his attack upon her was in part based on a strange belief that he was a paedophile – particularly his penile injuries. I should add that the injuries suffered by Tracy Hollis as found on autopsy were indicative of a violent and deliberate assault. 18 Since his arrest he has been under psychiatric care within the prison system. 19 Dr Giuffrida concluded:- In any case I am satisfied myself at least on the balance of probability and indeed it is very highly likely that at the time of the alleged offence that Mr Renete was indeed labouring under such a defect of reason, namely the particular delusions and irrational reasoning which flowed from a disease of mind namely long standing paranoid schizophrenia as to not to know what he was doing was wrong. This in turn is based on his belief that his delusions of course were real and his reasoning therefore was that it was right and proper to kill the victim and himself. There is therefore a direct link between the nature of his defect of reason and the act of killing. Whilst there is evidence that Mr Renet's illness was probably precipitated and certainly aggravated and maintained by the use of illicit substances and cannabis in particular, his psychosis was indeed an inherent and underlying one, namely schizophrenia that probably would have emerged in due course without the instigation of illicit substances. I say this to dismiss any consideration that this was merely a drug induced psychosis. 20 Whereas Dr Westmore is of the view:- This history in totality suggests that on the balance of probability Mr Renete was suffering from an acute psychotic episode at the time of the homicide. It was likely he had an acute episode of schizophrenia, possibly aggravated by illicit drug use and poor compliance with psychiatric medication. I believe Mr Renete could be considered eligible for a mental illness defence on the basis that on the balance of probability he was suffering from an acute schizophrenic episode at the time of the homicide, this is a disease of the mind which would have totally deprived him of his capacity to know that he ought not to do the act. It is likely he would have understood that what he was doing was wrong in a legal sense, but his ability to consider his actions with a moderate degree of calmness and in a rational way and to consider his behaviour from a morale perspective, would have been adversely affected by his mental illness. 21 While the psychiatrists believe that the accused has a defence of mental illness they appear to differ as to which aspect of the Mc Naghten rules is applicable. 22 Be this as it may, I am driven to the conclusion that the accused has on a balance of probabilities made out his defence of mental illness. Accordingly my verdict is not guilty on the ground of mental illness. 23 This finding does not mean that Mr Renete will be at liberty at the conclusion of this trial. As a matter of law, I must order that he must be detained in strict custody in such place and such manner as to me seems fit until released by due process of law. While in custody he comes under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. I believe it is of importance that I explain the function of that Tribunal - Composition of the Mental Health Review Tribunal The Mental Health Review Tribunal consists of a president or their deputy, who must be a lawyer. It also consists of two other persons, one of whom must be a psychiatrist. The third member is a person who has suitable qualifications or experience for the task. Functions of the Tribunal 1. To review Mr Renete's case as soon as practicable after an order is made for his detention in strict custody and make a recommendation to the Minister for Health as to Mr Renete's continued detention, care or treatment. 2. Only if satisfied that the safety of Mr Renete or that of any member of the public would not be seriously endangered by Mr Renete's release may a recommendation for release be made. If there is such a recommendation, then the Minister for Health must notify the Attorney-General and, at the same time, furnish a copy of his notification to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If the Attorney-General makes no objection to a recommendation for release within thirty days after being so notified by the Minister for Health then, and only then, may an order be made for Mr Renete's release, provided that the Minister for Police and Emergency Services are informed of the date of any such release. 3. Where release is not recommended, the Tribunal orders continued detention, care and treatment in a place and manner specified by the Tribunal. 4. After the review referred to in note (1), the Tribunal must, at least once every six months, again review the case and make recommendations to the Minister as to Mr Renete's continued detention, care or treatment in a hospital, prison or other place or as to his release. 5. In addition, the Tribunal must also review the case and make a recommendation to the Minister for Health if requested to do so by that Minister, the Attorney General, the Minister for Corrective Services, the Chief Health Officer or by a medical superintendent of a hospital. Again, the Tribunal must not recommend release unless satisfied as to the safety of Mr Renete or any member of the public. 6. If release is ordered, then it may be on conditions or unconditionally. On breach of a condition, or where the mental condition of Mr Renete has deteriorated so that he may be a serious danger to others a further order may be made for his apprehension, care and detention. 7. Security conditions (as necessary) continue whilst Mr Renete is in detention in a hospital, prison or other place or where he is allowed to be temporarily absent. 8. A person found "not guilty on the ground of mental illness" may be released from these restrictions if given an unconditional release, or where released on conditions and those conditions have expired by effluxion of time. 24 The orders of the Court are as follows: 1. The accused is not guilty of the murder of Tracy Hollis on the ground of mental illness; 2. The accused be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.