DPP v Yu [2025] VCC 1168

County Court of Victoria|2025-08-19

Judgment: Direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded

The accused has been charged with causing serious injury intentionally contrary to s16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
The victim is James Carroll who is the accused's husband.
The accused was born in China in October 1987.[1] She came to Australia in about 2008 as a student. She completed studies in business and financial planning as well as business management and then practised as an accountant from about 2011 to 2014. During this time she met the victim. Later they married and in about 2015 they moved in together.
Sometime in 2023 the accused's mother-in-law became unwell with terminal cancer. This seemed to provoke the onset of mental illness. The accused had a number of inpatient stays from late 2023 to June 2024. Some of these were on an involuntary basis and others were on a voluntary basis. During this time her behaviour became more bizarre; locking her husband in the house, hiding his keys and making outrageous financial demands of him. On 14 June 2024 the accused had a delusional episode where she poured water over a number of electrical appliances in their home and started a small fire.

Defence rely on a forensic psychiatric report by Associate Professor Rajan Darjee, a consultant forensic psychiatrist dated 15 December 2024.[2] He conducted interviews with the accused while she was at the DPFC in early November 2024 for about an hour and a half. As this matter has been dealt with by consent it is unnecessary for present purposes to repeat the extensive details of the accused's personal, medical and psychiatric history set out in that report. Based on the results of the mental state examination in conjunction with clinical assessment and information received from other sources Associate Professor Darjee expressed the opinion that the accused was at the time of the alleged offending:

"...clearly and obviously acutely and floridly unwell with psychotic symptoms and symptoms of severe mood disturbance at the time of the alleged offending. The symptoms continued in prison and at Thomas Embling Hospital for about two months before they responded to treatment with antipsychotic, mood stabilising and antidepressant medication."[3]

"In my opinion, the most appropriate diagnosis is bipolar affective disorder, with an episode of depression of mild to moderate severity after the death of her father and then a period of severe disturbance with psychotic symptoms since the death of her mother-in-law in September 2023. Over the last year she has clearly had periods of mania and periods of depression both associated with psychotic symptoms. An alternative diagnosis could be schizoaffective disorder given that some of her psychotic symptoms have been quite bizarre and have continued despite changes in her mood from manic to depressed."[4]

As to the relationship between mental health and the current charges he opined:

"She was clearly acutely and floridly psychotic at the time of the alleged offending. There is clear evidence of bizarre behaviour in response to psychotic symptoms in the week or so before the alleged index offending."[5]

"Therefore, in my view, it is unclear if she knew the nature and quality of what she was doing (although she knew she was stabbing her husband, she believed he had been possessed by an evil spirit), but she clearly did not know that this conduct was wrong, that is, she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong (she believed that she had to purge the evil spirit due to her hallucinations and delusions, and her disorganised thinking and her abnormal perception of reality mean she was not able to reason in a rational way about the situation and her behaviour). So, in my view, [s]he has a mental impairment defence available, although obviously it is for the Court to decide whether [s]he is acquitted of the charges on the grounds of mental impairment."[6]

In response the prosecution obtained a Psychiatric Court Report from Dr Thavarajah dated 6 May 2025.[7] He is a psychiatric registrar employed by Forensicare and works under the supervision of Dr Gideon Dubow, consultant psychiatrist at Forensicare. Currently Dr Thavarajah is an advanced trainee in forensic psychiatry with the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatry.
Again it is unnecessary to discuss the contents of Dr Thavarajah reporting in detail. It outlined his assessment of Ms Yu's personal medical and psychiatric history, lifestyle and psychosocial functioning as well as information obtained from collateral sources in relation to Ms Yu's mental health history. It is also of significance that he reviewed her treatment notes while she was an impatient at both DPFC and Thomas Embling Hospital. It is also relevant to note that in February 2025 Ms Yu was granted bail and has been engaged with Broadmeadows Community Mental Health where she sees a psychiatrist and case manager regularly as an outpatient. She has a court integrated services program caseworker and is being treated by a psychologist under a mental health care plan.
Overall he diagnosed Bipolar I Disorder with the most recent episode occurring at a time of severe depression with psychotic features.[8] He considered a differential diagnosis to be that of schizoaffective disorder.[9]
In considering the mental impairment defence as set out in s20 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) ('the Act') he states:

" ...It is my opinion that Ms Yu was suffering from an acute manic, depressive and psychotic episode in the context of Bipolar I Disorder, which would be considered a mental impairment and would satisfy the concept of the disease of the mind, within the meaning of the.. Act."[10]

"In relation to the alleged offence and on the balance of probabilities, based on Ms Yu's account and the contemporaneous clinical documentation, while it is unclear whether Ms Yu knew the nature and quality of the conduct, it is my opinion that she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong."[11]

He was of the overall opinion that the criteria for mental impairment defence under s20 of the Act was met.[12]

Having read the evidence I am satisfied that at the time of engaging in the conduct constituting the offence, Ms Yu was acting under a mental impairment most likely Bipolar I Disorder with a manic episode. I am also satisfied that the effect of this impairment was that Ms Yu could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether her conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong.
It follows that the defence of mental impairment is established pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Act. I therefore direct a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded pursuant to s21(4)(a) of the Act.
The parties agree it is appropriate that Ms Yu be continued on bail pending further investigation, the Court being satisfied that bail is appropriate.

(a) I direct pursuant to s21(4) of the Act that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded in respect of the charge of causing serious injury intentionally on indictment Q11284087.1.

(b) I grant bail to the accused on the same terms.

(c) I order the parties to obtain reports in accordance with s40, s41 and s42 of the Act.

(d) I order that the matter be brought back for mention on 31 October 2025 at 10:00AM.

[1] The summary of prosecution opening was tendered as Exhibit P1 and the parties accepted that it stood

as an agreed statement of facts pursuant to s191 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)

[2] Exhibit P3, report of Associate Professor Rajan Darjee dated 15 December 2024

[7] Exhibit P2, report of Dr Harisaanth Thavarajah dated 6 May 2025

(Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (18 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)