R v Clements [2016] NSWSC 1021

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Clements [2016] NSWSC 1021 Hearing dates: 18 July 2016 Date of orders: 18 July 2016 Decision date: 18 July 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Mathews AJ Decision: I find the accused David John Clements not guilty on the ground of mental illness in relation to the count on the indictment namely, that on 26 May 2015 at Springvale in the State of New South Wales did murder Roger Henderson Clements Catchwords: Murder; judge alone trial; defence of mental illness; special verdict - not guilty on the grounds of mental illness Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Cases Cited: Hawkins v the Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500 Newbury [2012] NSWSC 1361) R v McNaghten (1843) 8 ER 718 The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina David John Clements Representation: Counsel: Mr T Thorpe (Crown) Mr M King (Accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid (NSW) File Number(s): 2015/156782 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. MATHEWS AJ: On 18 July 2016 David John Clements was charged by way of indictment with one charge, namely that on 26 May 2015 he murdered Roger Henderson Clements. The accused (as I shall call him in these reasons) pleaded not guilty. His counsel, Mr King, indicated that he was pleading not guilty by reason of mental illness. 2. An order had previously been made, by consent, that the trial be conducted by judge alone. As often happens in these cases, the trial itself was extremely short. A number of documents were tendered by the Crown, all of them by consent. Indeed, they included two psychiatric reports obtained by the defence team. No oral evidence was given. 3. Both counsel were in agreement that the appropriate verdict in all the circumstances was the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. All relevant documents, including psychiatric reports, had previously been provided to me by counsel. Having read those documents I was firmly of the view that this was the only appropriate verdict in the circumstances. Accordingly, I formally entered a verdict that the accused was not guilty by reason of mental illness. I made a number of ancillary orders, all of them by consent. I said that I would deliver the reasons for my verdict at a later date. 4. These, then, are my reasons for finding the accused not guilty by reason of mental illness.