R v Cox [2018] NSWSC 200

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cox [2018] NSWSC 200 Hearing dates: 12, 13 and 14 February 2018 Date of orders: 28 February 2018 Decision date: 28 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hidden AJ Decision: Not guilty by reason of mental illness. Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I order that the accused be detained at the Mental Health Unit of the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder - special hearing – plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness - Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500 R v Ronald Ian Cox [2017] NSWSC 1097 R v Zvonaric (2001) 54 NSWLR; [2001] NSWCCA 505 The King v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Crown Ronald Ian Cox (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr D Barr (Crown) Ms C Davenport SC (Accused)

Solicitors: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Peter Katsoolis Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2016/135900 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. HIDDEN AJ: The accused, Ronald Ian Cox, is charged with the murder of Wayne Burton-Smith at Sutherland between 29 April and 3 May 2016. On 18 August 2017, Campbell J found him unfit to be tried for that offence: R v Ronald Ian Cox [2017] NSWSC 1097. On 27 October 2017, the Mental Health Review Tribunal found, pursuant to s 16(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, that Mr Cox remained unfit to be tried and would not become fit within the ensuing 12 months. Accordingly, I have presided over a special hearing, pursuant to s 19 of that Act, to determine whether, on the limited evidence available, Mr Cox committed the offence charged. Relevantly for present purposes, one of the verdicts available to me by s 22(1)(b) of the Act is not guilty on the ground of mental illness. Whether that should be the verdict is the only issue in this case. 2. The evidence in the case is undisputed and, for that reason, I have received almost all of it in documentary form. However, some oral evidence was given by the officer in charge of the investigation, Detective Senior Constable Paul Baglin, and I viewed some CCTV footage of an unrelated incident, to which I shall refer in due course. In addition, I heard oral evidence from two respected forensic psychiatrists, Dr Jonathan Adams and Dr Olav Nielssen, whose reports I also received. 3. I was content to proceed in this relatively informal way, given the limited issue to be determined, and guided by the observations of Spigelman CJ in R v Zvonaric (2001) 54 NSWLR 1; [2001] NSWCCA 505 at [2]-[19] (3-6). This was the approach adopted by the Crown prosecutor and counsel for the accused, Ms Davenport SC, both of whom are very experienced in this jurisdiction.