R v ANG [2008] NSWSC 673

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v ANG [2008] NSWSC 673

HEARING DATE(S) : 16, 19, 20, 22, 23 May 2008 JURISDICTION : Common Law

JUDGMENT OF : Adams J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 23 May 2008

DECISION : Not guilty by reason of mental illness.

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - mental illness defence

LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 s 38

CATEGORY : Principal judgment

CASES CITED : Regina v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718

Regina PARTIES : v Thiah ANG

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2007/5035001

COUNSEL : Mr J P Kiely SC (Crown) Mr P M Winch (Accused)

SOLICITORS : S C Kavanagh (Crown) Ms H Shaw (Legal Aid Commission of NSW) (Accused)

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

Adams J

Friday 23 May 2008

2007/5035001 - Regina v Thiah ANG

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused Thiah Ang is charged with the murder of his wife Chui Yuke Ang and wounding Nicholas Ang, his son, then aged 15 years, with intent to murder him. On arraignment on 19 May 2008 he pleaded not guilty to both charges. It is undisputed, indeed indisputable, that at the time of the incidents giving rise to these charges on 3 February 2007 Mr Ang was suffering from a very severe mental illness which may be described in psychiatric language as major depression with psychotic features. 2 The relevant facts and circumstances are not controversial. Indeed, they were set out in a statement of agreed facts signed by Senior Counsel for the Crown and Counsel for the defence. There is no doubt that the accused killed his wife and attempted to kill his son. It cannot be doubted that he attacked them because (in lay language) he was mad. His madness allowed him some level of reasoning. For example, he was aware that in order to kill them he needed implements. He knew where the hammer and knife which he ultimately used were. He knew how to wield them. He was aware of his physical surroundings. However, his depression and psychosis were such that in every relevant sense it may be said that he lived in a world of his own, a world which the lay person finds it almost impossible to conceptualise, a world in which life was so bleak, the future so despairing, and present existence so painful that it led this man who loved his wife and his son, to wish to kill them and take his own life. This is not at all one of those cases where an estranged husband kills his family and himself in an act of extreme defiance and anger. 3 The accused was examined by a number of highly competent and well-respected psychiatrists: on behalf of the Crown by Dr Lisa Brown and Dr Stephen Allnutt and on behalf of the defence by Dr Olav Nielssen and Dr Bruce Westmore. Also called by the Crown was Dr Cook, who in his role as a consultant for Justice Health, treated the accused when he was brought in to prison after he was released from the Prince of Wales Hospital, where he was taken following his attack on his wife and son, and because he had attempted to commit suicide. Other psychological assessments were made to which I do not need to advert. 4 All doctors are agreed that the accused suffered from a disease of the mind which gravely affected his understanding of what he was doing and his ability to reason about what he was doing. There is unanimity of opinion that he was suffering from a substantial impairment of his ability to reason. The issue, however, upon which the doctors called by the Crown differ with those called by the defence is whether he was mentally ill at the time within the meaning of s 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 which provides – "38( 1) If, in an indictment or information, an act or omission is charged against a person as an offence and it is given in evidence on the trial of the person for the offence that the person was mentally ill, so as not to be responsible, according to law, for his or her action at the time when the act was done or omission made, then, if it appears to the jury before which the person is tried that the person did the act or made the omission charged, but was mentally ill at the time when the person did or made the same, the jury must return a special verdict that the accused person is not guilty by reason of mental illness. (2) If a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness is returned at the trial of a person for an offence, the Court may remand the person in custody until the making of an order under section 39 in respect of the person."