DPP v Myers

1. On 21 November 2025, I delivered my judgment on the charges brought against the accused, Mr Myers: DPP v Myers (No 3) [2025] ACTSC 514 (Myers (No 3)). In paragraph 1 of my judgment in Myers (No 3), I recorded that Mr Myers was found unfit to plead by Taylor J on 21 November 2024. Pursuant to s 316 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), a special hearing of the charge against him was then conducted by me as a judge alone in accordance with an election by Mr Myers. He faced one charge under s 19 of the Crimes Act that, on 9 November 2022 at Canberra in the ACT, he intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm on the victim. The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years’ imprisonment.

2. At paragraph 4 of my judgment, I record that, from its commencement and for most of the special hearing, Mr Myers was not present. For the reasons I explained in DPP v Myers (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 354, he did not participate in his own hearing. Notwithstanding, Mr McBride, his counsel, was prepared to continue to act on his behalf for the entirety of the hearing. I exercised my discretion to continue the hearing, and I published my reasons: Myers (No 3).

3. The elements of the offence are that Mr Myers voluntarily engaged in conduct and that his conduct resulted in grievous bodily harm being inflicted upon the victim of the offence. From paragraph 22 of my judgment in Myers (No 3), I set out the factual background to the events the subject of the charge.

4. In summary, the relevant events took place in a garage of the former girlfriend of Mr Myers, where he was living at the time. There was some familiarity between Mr Myers, the victim, and the girlfriend. After earlier consumption of alcohol and, it appears, cannabis by Mr Myers and his girlfriend, the three people (Mr Myers, his girlfriend and the victim) were drinking in the garage. It appears that there was a substantial amount of heavy alcohol consumed at that time. There was some interaction between Mr Myers, his girlfriend, and the victim in an attempt to sort things out between Mr Myers and his girlfriend. The relationship appeared to be in difficulty at the time.

5. The conversation turned awkward, and some of the actions of the girlfriend and the victim aroused the jealousy of Mr Myers. At some stage during the conversation, something was said by the victim that enraged Mr Myers. In that state of rage, Mr Myers struck the victim to the middle of the face with his fist, and the victim fell to the floor. Mr Myers then grabbed a pole that was in the garage and struck the victim a number of times around the head with that pole. The victim was rendered semiconscious and then unconscious. However, soon afterwards, the victim, who was bleeding heavily, was able to crawl out of the garage and up some concrete steps into a concreted area at the back of the house. At that place, he was struck again by Mr Myers.

6. As my judgment records, the victim was taken to hospital and had suffered the following injuries: (a) swelling of the forehead around both eyes and the back of the head; (b) bruises around both eyes and of the forehead, right arm, back and left leg; (c) abrasions of the nasal bridge, forehead, right arm, tongue, back, right third finger and left elbow; (d) lacerations of the forehead and the back of the head; (e) extensive facial bone fractures; (f) fractures of the frontal and occipital bones of the skull; (g) pneumocephalus, which is air in the area around the brain; (h) intercranial haemorrhages, which is bleeding around the brain; and (i) possible parenchymal contusion of the brain, which is brain bruising.

7. The victim suffered multiple injuries of different types across several anatomical planes of the body as a result of the conduct of Mr Myers, indicating multiple applications of force. The bruise injuries, the abrasion injuries, the laceration injuries, the facial bone injuries and the skull fractures were all the result of blunt force trauma.

8. Dr Rushton opined that the victim may have temporary or permanent sequelae as a result of his injuries, including: (a) permanent alteration of his facial appearance; (b) permanent scarring; (c) double vision; (d) altered sensation in his face; and (e) possible psychological sequelae relating to the experience of the traumatic event.

9. At paragraph 77 of my judgment in Myers (No 3), I considered the requirements for proof of grievous bodily harm, which in this context is any permanent or serious disfiguring of the person. In my judgment, the injuries sustained by the victim were very serious. He suffered extensive injuries, and these injuries have had a long-term effect on his health. I refer in particular to the multiple facial injuries sustained by the victim and the serious long-term disfigurement of his facial structure, including the forehead, which may in the future require surgery for correction.

10. I have earlier indicated that this was a special hearing. Section 319 of the Crimes Act provides: 319 Non-acquittal at special hearing—serious offence (1) This section applies if— (a) an accused is charged with a serious offence; and (b) at a special hearing that is a trial— (i) by a single judge without a jury—the judge is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged (or an alternative offence, if not satisfied in relation to the offence charged); or (ii) by jury—the jury advises the court under section 317 (1). (2) The Supreme Court must— (a) order that the accused be detained in custody for immediate review by the ACAT under the Mental Health Act 2015, section 180; or (b) if, taking into account the criteria for detention in section 308, it is more appropriate—order that the accused submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act 2015.

11. Under s 319(1), Mr Myers was charged with a serious offence, and at a special hearing, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he engaged in the conduct required to prove he had committed the offence charged. In that case, I must either order that he be detained in custody for immediate review by ACAT under s 180 of the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) or if it is more appropriate, taking into account the criteria for detention in s 308, order that he submit to the jurisdiction of ACAT to allow ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act (see ss 319(1)(a), (1)(b)(i), (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the Crimes Act).

12. Section 308 of the Crimes Act provides: 308 Criteria for detention For this part, other than division 13.5 (except section 335), in making a decision which could include an order for detention, the Supreme Court or Magistrates Court shall consider the following criteria: (a) the nature and extent of the accused’s mental impairment, including the effect it is likely to have on the person’s behaviour in the future; (b) whether or not, if released— (i) the accused’s health and safety is likely to be substantially impaired; or (ii) the accused is likely to be a danger to the community; (c) the nature and circumstances of the offence with which the accused is charged; (d) the principle that a person should not be detained in a correctional centre unless no other reasonable option is available; (e) any recommendation made by the ACAT about how the accused should be dealt with.

13. In making any decision which could include a detention order, I must consider the criteria set out therein, the first of which is s 308(a): the nature and extent of the accused's mental impairment, including the effect it is likely to have on his behaviour in the future. Following requests made by counsel on 7 November 2025, I ordered a brief mental health report from the Forensic Mental Health Services of Canberra Health Services. That report has been received, is dated 19 November 2025 and is marked P12. The report is authored by Sarah Gosper, clinical psychologist, from the Mental Health Court Assessment and Liaison Service.

14. In her report, Ms Gosper reports that Mr Myers has been engaged with ACT Mental Health Services since 2021, and prior to that time was supported by the equivalent New South Wales service for approximately eight years. When first seen by the ACT Mental Health Service, collateral was obtained from the Queanbeyan, New South Wales service indicating Mr Myers had a history of drug-induced psychosis, with a history of being treated at times under a community treatment order due to noncompliance with medication. His mental health was characterised by persecutory delusions, which intensified when he used illicit substances, and he presented with antisocial traits. He had a history of significant childhood trauma and a possible childhood diagnosis of ADHD, with a history of substance abuse, in particular methylamphetamine and cannabis.

15. Through 2021, he was supported by ACT Mental Health Services in a crisis situation, which involved police, ambulance and early response services. Impressions documented included acute distress with suicidal ideation and self-harm, personality vulnerabilities and substance use. He presented with paranoia and grandiose themes, and was assessed as presenting in the context of ongoing substance use and personality vulnerabilities.

16. In 2022, Mr Myers was admitted to the Adult Mental Health Unit (AMHU), upon noting recent deterioration in his mental state, including agitation, disorganisation, paranoia with persecutory delusions regarding police and gangs, and grandiose delusions regarding lineage with a royal family. Further collateral was obtained from the Dubbo Mental Health Service, which had reportedly known of Mr Myers for a longer period compared to the Queanbeyan Mental Health Service and had recorded a history of paranoid schizophrenia, with limited insight and noncompliance with treatment.

17. Whilst at the AMHU, he was assessed as presenting with schizophrenia, with no insight, and was commenced on a long-acting antipsychotic injection. A psychiatric treatment order (PTO) was requested and granted. After an extended admission, he was discharged to the care of Community Recovery Services. He remained subject to a PTO until late 2022, when it was revoked; it is recorded that treatment with the antipsychotic had appeared to be “not effective”. He likely presented with recurrent episodes of substance-induced psychosis, complicated by personality vulnerabilities, and a medication-free period was recommended. Over the next six months, the Tuggeranong Mental Health Services continued to provide support, but no significant change in mental health was noticed in the absence of medication.

18. In June 2023, he was admitted to the AMHU. A PTO was applied for and granted to support treatment of psychosis, which included persecutory and grandiose themes, mood disturbances and speech irritability. He was noncompliant with prescribed medication, and a PTO was reapplied for and granted in late 2023. In 2024, Mr Myers was documented to have been aggressive and agitated towards the treating team, noting he would often use methylamphetamine prior to attending the services. It appears that, in that April, he moved to Sydney.

19. In May 2024, he returned to Canberra and was admitted to the AMHU. A psychiatric treatment order was reapplied for and granted. For the remainder of the year, Mr Myers was frequently in contravention of the PTO and would require police attendance to provide medication or to transport him to hospital. This was due to his aggression towards staff.

20. In 2025, he was again admitted to the AMHU for diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia. Over the next six months, he did not engage with City Mental Health Services, and his aggression and agitation towards the treating team complicated provision of care in the community. He was supported in hospital on a range of occasions in the year. He expressed overwhelming fear related to receiving injections. He thought injections were chemical castration.

21. He was recorded to be in contravention of his PTO and was arrested on 12 August 2025. He was transported to hospital under an emergency apprehension order, and he remains in custody. He has an established diagnosis of schizophrenia and was presenting with ongoing psychotic symptoms, which included grandiose delusions regarding his lineage and persecutory delusions about being targeted by a range of individuals. He was placed in the Crisis Support Unit. Three days later, he was transferred to the Dhulwa Mental Health Unit. He continued to present as agitated, and whilst in Dhulwa, he continued to receive medications via injection. He presented with less agitation with consistent treatment. He remained in Dhulwa for two weeks, and at discharge his listed diagnoses included schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder. His medication was changed to oral medication at the end of October 2025, and he appears to have been far more compliant with that medication since that time.

22. He was then assessed. He quickly advised on assessment that his mental health history had been “fabricated”, noting that he does not have delusional beliefs. He spoke at length about his believed ancestry, noting himself to be “House of St Lennox”, having been “handed powers at birth”, having “ownership rights of Australia” and having his own “SAS” and “soldiers” to protect him. For the duration of the assessment, Mr Myers spoke of his lineage, the powers that lineage bore him, and subsequently the threats he feels due to this. He expressed long-term paranoia regarding being “kidnapped” and “hunted” by a range of people in his past, including “corrupt police”, “bikie gangs”, “Muslims” and “criminals”. He claimed to have been targeted and that he continues to be targeted due to his lineage. He expressed heightened levels of distress since being in custody, noting that rumours had been spread that he is an informant, and he has been persecuted.

23. He is aware that he is subject to a PTO, but he maintains that he has been forced to take medication by injection since 2013. He says that he did not have a mental illness and that the injections caused him significant distress and resulted in flashbacks. He said that he had recently been changed from injection to an oral medication, which he preferred. However, he believed that his medication does not help him. He did not wish to continue with the medication. He explained that he wished to be off everything so his mind can heal and he can focus on trauma treatment.

24. He explained that he has had a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. He said that he self-medicated with amphetamines to assist his concentration, noting that it helped him write. He used amphetamines twice a week, but of an amount which was not disclosed. He reported daily cannabis use, which he smokes for sleep. He had a previous history of heroin use, which he has ceased. He also had a history of trying cocaine.

25. He said that he did not have any supports in the community, outside of his dog. He expressed concerns about his health and about him being messy, and this was confirmed as he was found to be in a state of squalor. He said that he does not speak with his family, explaining that his mother and brother are targeting him because of his lineage and wanting the rights to his lineage “power”. His mother and brother both reside in Queanbeyan, and he reports that his mother has an apprehended violence order in place due to the “corrupt police”.

26. The report records impressions and recommendations. It reports that Mr Myers has an established diagnosis of treatment-resistant schizophrenia, characterised by grandiose and persecutory delusions, agitation, irritability and disorganisation. Mr Myers has a long history of being noncompliant with medication due to his fear of injections. His mental health is consistently documented to be complicated and exacerbated by illicit substance use and past experiences of trauma. He presented with ongoing symptoms, including grandiose and persecutory delusions, and appeared to have poor insight into his mental illness and treatment needs. He has recently been changed to oral medication, which is better for him. He said he would continue with the medication in the community, but he explained that he does not believe that he needs the medication and therefore wants to cease it. He wanted to have more community supports.

27. Notwithstanding that he is able to comprehend that he needs more community supports, the report in the penultimate paragraph states that: … his clinical record has indicated challenges in supporting Mr Myers in the community due to agitation and risk to staff. This may therefore complicate the provision of these services in the community, should Mr Myers present as agitated. With ongoing consistent treatment, it is hoped that Mr Myers’ agitation can be better managed, allowing services to provide support more meaningfully.

28. I am satisfied that Mr Myers is suffering a significant mental impairment which is having a significant and deleterious effect on his behaviour and will continue to have a deleterious effect on his behaviour until he is stabilised to as sufficient a level as may be possible. At its highest, the mental health report records that it is hoped that his agitation could be better managed, allowing services to provide support more meaningfully. I accept that Mr Myers requires very significant community support at many levels of services.

29. I turn then to the criterion in s 308(b). I am satisfied that if an order for Mr Myers’ release is made, his health and safety is likely to be substantially impaired because of the very factors that I have just identified. I also am satisfied that, in light of these factors and in light of the information on which I rely about his agitation, he would be a danger to the community without being properly stabilised. I have already earlier set out, for s 308(c), the nature and the circumstances of the offence. It is a serious offence, where, without cause, a person was bashed and then struck multiple times with some form of pole, causing quite serious facial injuries, brain bruising and multiple serious head and other injuries.

30. I have not received a recommendation from ACAT about how the accused should be dealt with and such a report has not been requested. One effect of an order for detention under s 319 would be to provide the opportunity for ACAT to obtain such a report. I have taken into account the principle that Mr Myers, like any other person, should not be detained in a correctional centre unless no other reasonable option is available. On the basis of the information before me, and for all of the reasons that I have canvassed above, I am satisfied that Mr Myers should now be detained in custody for immediate review by ACAT under s 180 of the Mental Health Act.

31. Submissions have been made, which I accept, that at this time I must make an order for detention and an order under s 301 of the Crimes Act. In DPP v Kakar [2023] ACTSC 236; 380 FLR 258, Justice Baker accepted that any order made under s 301 does not necessarily bind ACAT in relation to the period of detention. The authority of ACAT (and the obvious intention of this Part) is to make an assessment of Mr Myers and to establish a program so that Mr Myers’ agitation can be better managed and so that he can be provided support within the community through existing services.

32. Under s 301(1) of the Crimes Act, if under s 319(2) I make an order that the accused should be detained in custody for immediate review by ACAT, I must indicate whether, if the special hearing had been a normal criminal proceeding against Mr Myers, who was fit to be tried for and convicted of the offence with which he is charged, I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

33. I have had regard to the submissions of counsel, the relevant authorities which I have been provided, and the relevant sentencing principles. I have also had regard to the criminal antecedents of Mr Myers. I have set out above the findings of fact that I have made, and those findings of fact are recorded in the judgment that I have delivered this day in Myers (No 3).

34. I accept that, in the case of Mr Myers, when assessing sentencing principles, specific and general deterrence play a lesser role, although I do not minimise the necessity under general deterrence to take into account the protection of the community. I accept the submissions made by Mr McBride that, on reviewing Exhibit P11, the antecedent history, there were no major offences committed by Mr Myers in the last 10 years.

35. A review of Mr Myers’ antecedent history discloses offences for stalking, having custody of a knife and using a carriage service to threaten harm, all of which occurred in 2015, for which he was placed upon a bond or received a fine. There is no evidence that Mr Myers did not comply with the terms of that bond. In 2019, the Queanbeyan Local Court dealt with two charges of contravene prohibition/restriction under an apprehended violence order (domestic). A mental health assessment was ordered. Once that assessment was made, the court dealt with the contraventions through a requirement to fulfil a community corrections order and to accept mental health treatment as directed, as well as attending drug and alcohol assessments and counselling. The supervision was for 12 months, commencing on 22 November 2019.

36. In 2021, the Queanbeyan Local Court also dealt with charges of common assault and stalking/intimidating intending to create fear. No findings of guilt were made. I accept counsel’s submissions that I would not take those matters into consideration. The final offence was driving a vehicle with illicit drug present in blood on 4 November 2022.

37. Notwithstanding the submissions made by Mr McBride, I accept the submissions of counsel for the Director that there is some moral culpability in the conduct of Mr Myers. That culpability must be assessed in the context of the facts of the matter. Something was said by the victim which enraged Mr Myers. He reacted immediately in a state of inebriation and struck the victim, first by a fist and then by the use of the pole.

38. I accept the prosecution submissions that there appears to be an absence of premeditation. The act was impulsive and is linked to the mental health of Mr Myers. However, I am also mindful that the event started in the garage, where the victim was first struck, and then continued up the concrete steps into the courtyard behind the house. At that place, Mr Myers struck the victim so hard with the pole that it could be heard by neighbours.

39. Mr Howe for the Director properly concedes that the penalty in respect of this matter would be in the lower half of the range of penalties. That range of penalties is thoroughly discussed by Justice Baker in her Honour's decision in DPP v Kakar to which I have earlier referred. Comparative cases and so comparative sentences turn upon their own peculiar facts and circumstances. Courts rarely, in my view, obtain significant benefit from reviewing comparative sentences when deciding upon the appropriateness of a particular sentence.

40. I have given this matter considerable thought. In my view, the actions of Mr Myers were violent, although not premeditated. They continued after the initial assault. The continuance occurred after the victim had attempted to escape from Mr Myers. There was a second occasion on which an assault occurred in the courtyard area behind the house, which was up the stairs from the garage. That was so violent it was heard by independent witnesses who were in a unit realistically some five levels above where that event took place. It was so loud that it brought them both to the outside of the premises in which they were sitting to see what was happening.

41. In those circumstances, I am satisfied that the sentence that I would have imposed if Mr Myers was fit to be tried and convicted of the offence with which he is now charged would have been a period of imprisonment for two years.

42. Counsel have made submissions, and it is agreed, that Mr Myers has spent 106 days in custody. Counsel have submitted, and there was no disagreement, that the sentence I impose should be backdated by 106 days from today. I therefore announce that the sentence I would have imposed is a period of two years' imprisonment backdated by 106 days to 7 August 2025.

Orders

43. The orders of the Court are: (1) The accused is detained in custody for immediate review by the ACAT under s 180 under the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT). (2) The sentence that I would have imposed is a period of imprisonment for two years, backdated by 106 days, to commence on 7 August 2025.

I certify that the preceding forty-three [43] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Justice Slattery. Associate: Date: