R v Cottam [2019] NSWDC 738

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cottam [2019] NSWDC 738 Hearing dates: 11, 12 November 2019 Date of orders: 25 November 2019 Decision date: 25 November 2019 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bright DCJ Decision: Count 1 - not guilty by reason of mental illness. Count 2 - not guilty by reason of mental illness. Catchwords: Criminal – trial by judge alone - wound with intent to murder – in the alternative - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – defence of mental illness Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Mental Health Act 2007 Cases Cited: Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77 R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718 R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182 R v Tumanako 64 A Crim R 149 Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Robert David Cottam (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Ms Tennant (Crown) Mr De Brennan (Accused)

Solicitors: File Number(s): 2018/313719 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. On 11 November 2019 Robert Cottam (the "accused") appeared before the Gosford District Court for trial. 2. A judge alone election had been filed on 11 October 2019. The Crown consented to the election. Accordingly, the trial proceeded as a judge alone trial on 11 November 2019 the Court having been satisfied that the accused, before making such an election, sought and received advice from a legal practitioner. 3. The accused was arraigned on the following counts: Count 1 - On 14 October 2018, in Colongra in the State of New South Wales, did wound Peter James Richards with intent to murder the said Peter James Richards (s27, Crimes Act). And further in the alternative to count 1, that Count 2 - On 14 October 2018, in Colongra in the State of New South Wales, did wound Peter James Richards with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s33(1)(a), Crimes Act). 1. The accused pleaded not guilty to each count. 2. Ms Tennant, Crown Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr De Brennan of Counsel appeared on behalf of the accused. 3. It is alleged that the accused wounded Peter Richards ("the complainant") with a knife causing a neck wound (5 cm deep), 2 chest wounds (superficial), stomach wound (superficial) and a laceration to his finger. At the time of the alleged offending the accused and the complainant both worked as security guards. 4. At the commencement of the trial, I was advised that the only issue at the trial is whether the accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness. 5. Both the Crown and Mr De Brennan on behalf of the accused, agree that is the appropriate verdict had regard to the available evidence. 6. It remains a matter for me to consider all the evidence and return my verdicts according to the evidence.