R v Batey

Catchwords: CRIME – murder – defence of mental health impairment – where parties agree defence available – Court satisfied that defence established – special verdict of act proven but defendant not criminally responsible

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 6, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 59, 79, 84, 109

Cases Cited: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931
R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293
R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064
R v Trinne (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1064
R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Rex (Crown)
Lucas Batey (Accused)

Representation: Counsel:
A McMaster (Crown)
S Talbert (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2024/00101521

JUDGMENT

1. The accused, Lucas Batey, stands charged with the murder of Kien Vinh Vuong on about 16 March 2024 contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

2. On 7 November 2025 the matter was listed by Hamill J for special hearing pursuant to s 55 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”). No election to have the matter determined by jury was made by the defence and accordingly the special hearing was determined by a judge alone pursuant to s 56(9) of the Act.

3. The Crown and the accused’s counsel advised the Court of their agreement, for the purpose of s 31 of the Act, that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment pursuant to s 28 of the Act. Section 31 requires the Court, after considering the proposed evidence, to be satisfied that the defence is established.

4. I therefore conducted a special hearing on 16 December 2025 to determine whether or not the evidence established a defence of mental health impairment. I was so satisfied and on 16 December 2025 I entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible pursuant to s 31 of the Act. I then made further orders and directions.

5. As I observed in R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345 at [5]:-

“This was not a judge alone trial in the sense prescribed by s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. I am not required to expose my reasoning process linking the principles of law with the facts found and which justify the verdict I have reached: Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68.”

6. Nevertheless, in the interests of transparency and in conformity with the principle of open justice, what follows are my reasons for making the orders and directions on 16 December 2025.

7. I am grateful to Mr McMaster, who appeared on behalf of the Crown and Ms Talbert who appeared on behalf of the accused, for the collaborative manner in which they conducted these proceedings. The purpose of this special hearing was so that I could consider the agreed position of the Crown and the accused by carefully examining the evidence that was put before me. This was not a trial by judge alone and it was neither adversarial nor accusatorial. Rather, it was an inquiry instigated by the parties at an early stage to obviate the need for a lengthy and costly trial, when both the prosecution and defence believe that on the available evidence, a defence of mental health impairment was established. It is for the Court to find facts and to apply ss 4 and 28 of the Act to determine whether or not the Court is satisfied that the defence of mental health impairment is made out on the balance of probabilities.

Evidence

8. A volume of documents was tendered into evidence and marked as exhibit 1. It comprised the following:-

9. The Indictment;

10. The Crown Case Statement, noted to be a Statement of Facts which are not disputed for the purpose of this special hearing;

11. Mr Batey’s New South Wales criminal history which contains two assault charges which precipitated his entry into custody;

12. Mr Batey’s Victorian criminal history, which notes a short history of offending leading up to the index offence and for which he received non-custodial penalties;

13. Mr Batey’s New South Wales custodial history;

14. Report of Dr Richard Furst, forensic psychiatrist dated 11 March 2025;

15. Report of Dr Richard Furst, forensic psychiatrist dated 12 March 2025;

16. Report of Dr Richard Furst, forensic psychiatrist dated 14 March 2025;

17. Report of Dr Rafe Pulley, forensic psychiatrist dated 21 May 2025;

18. Mr Vuong’s custodial history which notes that he was sentenced to several short fixed terms of imprisonment over the approximate 10 years leading up to his death. He was noted to have histories of mental illness and drug issues;

19. Court Attendance Notice for alleged offending by Mr Batey on 13 March 2024 together with a Police Facts Sheet; and

20. Court Attendance Notice for alleged offending by Mr Batey on 8 March 2024 together with a Police Facts Sheet.

Statement of Facts

9. The Crown Case Statement contains facts agreed for the purpose of the special hearing which I find and set out as follows.

10. The Crown contends that the accused Lucas Batey, born in 2004, is responsible for the alleged offence of murder as principal in the first degree. The deceased is Kien Vinh Vuong, born in 1976. As at 17 March 2024 Mr Batey was 20 years of age and Mr Vuong was 47 years of age.

11. On 13 March 2024, Mr Batey was bail refused by the Downing Centre Local Court and remanded in custody at Parklea Correctional Centre (“Parklea”). This was Mr Batey’s first time in custody.

12. Records obtained under subpoena from Corrective Services NSW and the Justice Health and Forensic Health Network (“Justice Health”) indicate that the deceased had a custodial history. He had experienced psychosis and had presented with paranoid and aggressive behaviours including self-harm. He did not have a previous protection history.

13. Upon admission to Parklea the accused was not being treated for any mental health issues, and none were detected when he was screened on admission to Parklea.

14. The accused was assigned cell 61, in B Wing of Area 6, an area that housed the main population of prisoners. Each cell in B wing is fitted with a centre phone system, which is akin to an intercom system, and which is to be used in the event of an emergency. CCTV captured the doorway of cell 61, but not the inside of the cell.

15. On Saturday 16 March 2024 the deceased was moved into cell 61 with the accused. CCTV footage shows that at 3:12pm on Saturday 16 March 2024 the accused and deceased were locked inside cell 61. A nurse conducted rounds in B Wing, escorted by a Correctional Officer.

16. At about 7pm they approached cell 61. The Correctional Officer opened the meal flap and turned on the light switch before opening the cell window. The accused was observed facing the wall on the left-hand side and appeared to be asleep. The deceased was on the right-side bed laying on his back. The Correctional Officer had a conversation with the deceased, and asked him whether he wanted any of his prescription medication, which he declined.

17. The accused turned to face the Correctional Officer and asked her to turn off the light. The Correctional Officer finished speaking to the deceased and turned off the lights. She closed the window and continued with her duties.

18. CCTV footage shows that no other person entered the cell until Correctional Officers conducted a head count the following morning at 8:53am.

19. On the morning of 17 March 2024, Correctional Officers Roxanne Pennyworth and Michael Dawes were assigned as partners for the day. They attended B Wing and commenced security checks for the morning. They commenced a head count at approximately 8:35am.

20. Officer Pennyworth approached cell 61 and opened the metal flap to the cell. She looked inside the cell and saw the accused sitting on a fixed table. The deceased was lying on the bed to the right-hand side of the cell. Officer Pennyworth said “You guys all good.” The accused responded “Yeah.”

21. There was no response by the deceased. Officer Dawes told the accused to stay where he was. Officer Pennyworth opened the cell door and approached the deceased. The accused said “He’s sleeping.” Officer Dawes called out to the deceased but there was no response. The accused said “I told you, he’s sleeping.” Officer Pennyworth observed that the accused had his left elbow on his left knee with his left palm covering his mouth.

22. Officer Dawes then physically examined the deceased and was unable to locate a pulse. The deceased had visible bruising and discolouration around his lips and the left torso area. There was blood on his face and in his mouth. The deceased’s left hand was dark purple, and his left eye was swollen over with bruising. Officer Dawes asked the accused “How long has he been like this?” The accused responded “I don’t know maybe a couple of hours.”

23. At approximately 8:55am Officer Dawes called a ‘Code Blue’, possible ‘Code White’ (death in custody) while Officer Pennyworth removed the accused from the cell. Officer Pennyworth escorted the accused downstairs and placed him in cell 81. Officer Dawes commenced CPR on the deceased. Other correctional officers arrived at cell 61 to assist Officer Dawes. They moved the deceased from the bed to the floor.

24. NSW Ambulance paramedics arrived at 9:16am and took over the treatment of the deceased. At 9:26am NSW Paramedics ceased resuscitation. The following was noted:-

25. No palpable carotid pulse;

26. No heart sounds heard for five minutes;

27. No breath sounds heard for five minutes;

28. Pupils were fixed and dilated;

29. No response from centralised stimulus;

30. No motor response or facial grimace in response to painful stimulus; and

31. The patient was asystole.

32. At 9:28am paramedics declared Mr Vuong deceased. All persons then exited cell 61. Its door was double locked.

33. Officer Coluccio of the Incident Response Team attended cell 81 and escorted the accused to the clinic. He observed the accused to have a blackened lower right eye, a graze on the centre of his nose and redness around his lower left ear. Both of the accused’s hands appeared to be bruised and swollen.

34. During the walk to the clinic Officer Coluccio and the accused had the following conversation:-

“Officer Collucio: ‘Is this your first time in?’

Accused: ‘I should only be here for a month. It’s only a small thing.’

Officer Collucio: ‘What happened in the cell? Are you ok?’

Accused: ‘Yeah all good, it’s just a regular Sunday for me.’

Officer Collucio: ‘What area are you from on the outside?’

Accused: ‘From the Eastern suburbs, Bondi, where I played footy.’”

28. At 10am Sergeant Mackay, Senior Constable Simkins and Constable Hoad of Riverstone Police attended Parklea. Arrest photos taken by police indicate that the accused had swollen pink knuckles, a small scratch to the bridge of his nose and a small area of bruising to his left eye.

29. Whilst the accused was being escorted to Riverstone Police Station, he could be heard laughing and making noises imitating the car such as “Vroom, vroom.”

30. At Riverstone Police Station, the accused was introduced to the Custody Manager and was read his rights under Part 9 of Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW). The accused participated in an electronically recorded interview with police. He denied assaulting the deceased. He told police the following:-

(a) He was in custody for an alleged assault of a police officer and another assault in the city near the State Library; (b) He arrived at Parklea on Wednesday 13 March 2024 and had been in cell 61 since his arrival; (c) Since his arrival he had two different cell mates. The first was a Lebanese male and the second was a Vietnamese male. He could not recall either of their names; (d) The Vietnamese male arrived in his cell on 16 March 2024; (e) He had a welfare check on 15 March 2024 when he was “asked to leave due to his attitude”; (f) He was in the cell on 16 March 2024 by 4:45pm. He went to sleep at 8:20pm when it was dark outside; (g) When they were locked in their cell, his cellmate (the deceased) started to pray; (h) He woke up in the morning and was keen to move cells. He packed his belongings and waited to get transferred. He believed this occurred at approximately 7:30am or 7:45am on 17 March 2024; (i) He left his cell at approximately 7:30am to get a sandwich from a sweeper; (j) He was escorted to the medical centre “due to the mischief that happened to his cellmate” as “apparently he was pretty mangled up”; (k) His cellmate was sleeping when he exited the cell; (l) He denied any confrontation with his cellmate and having any conversation with him overnight; (m) He slept through the night apart from waking once to use the toilet; (n) When asked about the state of his cell that morning, he said it was “pretty tidy, buddy” and “it smelled fresh, I had a shower.”; and (o) He denied that his hands appeared swollen.

31. An inmate in cell 17 described hearing thumping periodically throughout the night. The noise was coming from the left-hand side of the cell and was described as not too loud, but enough to be annoying. The noise was not apparent the previous evening.

32. An inmate in cell 60, adjacent to the accused’s cell, awoke at midnight and heard loud screams. He overheard a voice repeatedly yelling, “Fuck off, fuck off.” The inmate then heard banging and thumping.

33. At about 2am or 3am another inmate in cell 60 awoke to screaming. He asked his cellmate “Did you hear that?” to which his cellmate replied, “Yeah they’re going crazy. It’s been going on awhile before you woke up.” That inmate described hearing two distinct voices screaming for approximately 10 seconds.

34. An inmate in cell 62, also adjacent to the accused’s cell, woke in the early hours of the morning to a large amount of banging from the cell next to him. He felt the vibrations through the wall which continued for approximately 5–10 minutes. He heard aggressive yelling. The inmate went back to sleep, but awoke shortly after and heard 5 loud bangs.

35. The deceased was conveyed to Lidcombe Mortuary under police escort at 5:26pm on 17 March 2024. A post-mortem examination took place on 21 March 2024. The cause of death was determined to be multiple blunt force injuries.

36. The deceased was found to have the following injuries:

37. Head injury with extensive subdural haematomas;

38. Facial injuries including nasal fractures, a displaced tooth and contusions;

39. Multiple rib fractures;

40. Surgical emphysema and hemopneumothoraxes;

41. Large areas of bruising and abrasions on the face including a 15mm laceration to the left eye and an abrasion and boggy swelling on the right posterior scalp;

42. Bilateral subdural haemorrhage to the brain which confirmed acute blunt force trauma;

43. Areas of bruising seen in the chest and back;

44. Multiple anterior, posterior and lateral fractures of the ribs;

45. Fracture of the sternum;

46. Multiple small lacerations of the pleural surface of the lungs due to displaced ribs.

47. Large bilateral pneumothoraxes with collapse of the lungs;

48. Multiple areas of bruising and abrasion on the upper and lower limbs, extensive areas of bruising over both hands and dorsal forearms;

49. Multiple linear and irregular scars present on forearms and anterior thighs suggestive of previous self harm; and

50. Adhesions around the right lung but internal organs otherwise showed no evidence of significant underlying natural disease.

51. No alcohol, prescription medications or drugs of abuse were detected in the deceased’s blood.

Legislative Framework

38. Section 4 of the Act defines mental health impairment as follows:-

**“**4 Mental health impairment

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has a mental health impairment if—

(a) the person has a temporary or ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory, and

(b) the disturbance would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and

(c) the disturbance impairs the emotional wellbeing, judgment or behaviour of the person.

(2) A mental health impairment may arise from any of the following disorders but may also arise for other reasons—

(a) an anxiety disorder,

(b) an affective disorder, including clinical depression and bipolar disorder,

(c) a psychotic disorder,

(d) a substance induced mental disorder that is not temporary.

(3) A person does not have a mental health impairment for the purposes of this Act if the person’s impairment is caused solely by—

(a) the temporary effect of ingesting a substance, or

(b) a substance use disorder.”

39. Section 28 of the Act provides a defence of mental health impairment (or cognitive impairment):-

**“**28 Defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, at the time of carrying out the act constituting the offence, the person had a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment, or both, that had the effect that the person—

(a) did not know the nature and quality of the act, or

(b) did not know that the act was wrong (that is, the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).

(2) The question of whether a defendant had a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment, or both, that had that effect is a question of fact and is to be determined by the jury on the balance of probabilities.

(3) Until the contrary is proved, it is presumed that a defendant did not have a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, or both, that had that effect.

(4) In this Part, act includes—

(a) an omission, and

(b) a series of acts or omissions.”

40. Pursuant to s 6 of the Act, the reference to “jury” in s 28(2) includes a reference to a judge in proceedings determined by a judge alone.

41. Section 59 of the Act sets out the verdicts which are available at a special hearing:-

“59 Verdicts at special hearings

(1) The verdicts available at a special hearing include the following—

(a) not guilty of the offence charged,

(b) a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible,

(c) that on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged,

(d) that on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed an offence available as an alternative to the offence charged.

(2) A judge who determines a special hearing must include in the determination the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.

(3) A special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible may only be entered under this section if the judge is satisfied that the requirements of section 28(1) and (2) are met.”

42. Section 31 of the Act permits the Court to enter a special verdict under the Act when the defendant and prosecutor agree that the proposed evidence establishes a defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment:-

**“**31 Special verdict where defendant and prosecutor agree on impairment

The court may enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible at any time in the proceedings (including before the jury is empanelled) if—

(a) the defendant and the prosecutor agree that the proposed evidence in the proceedings establishes a defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, and

(b) the defendant is represented by an Australian legal practitioner, and

(c) the court, after considering that evidence, is satisfied that the defence is so established.”

43. In R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292, Johnson J said at [19]:-

“In the second reading speech for the MHCIFP Bill, the Attorney General explained that s.31 “aims to avoid the need for an expensive and lengthy trial when the prosecutor and defence are in agreement that a special verdict should be found” (Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 3 June 2020, page 2352). The Attorney General observed that the Bill added “extra safeguards” in that “the defendant must be legally represented and the court must be satisfied that, on the evidence, the defence is established”. This was in line with the recommendation of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Report 138, “People With Cognitive and Mental Health Impairments in the Criminal Justice System – Criminal Responsibility and Consequences”, 2013, paragraphs 3.159-3.160.”

44. In this case, in my opinion, the requirements of s 31 have been met and the need for a long and costly trial has been obviated. Mr McMaster and Ms Talbert (who represents Mr Batey) agree that the evidence establishes the defence of mental health impairment: ss 31(a) and (b). As will be seen, having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the defence is established: s 31(c).

45. Sections 33 and 34 of the Act sets out the consequences which flow from the return of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible:-

“33 Effect of special verdict

(1) On the return of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, the court may make one or more of the following orders—

(a) an order that the defendant be remanded in custody until a further order is made under this section,

(b) an order that the defendant be detained in the place and manner that the court thinks fit until released by due process of law,

(c) an order for the unconditional or conditional release of the defendant from custody,

(d) other orders that the court thinks appropriate.

(2) Before making an order for the release of a defendant, the court may request a report by a forensic psychiatrist or other person of a class prescribed by the regulations, who is not currently involved in treating the defendant, as to the condition of the defendant and whether the release of the defendant is likely to seriously endanger the safety of the defendant or any member of the public.

(3) The court must not make an order for the release of a defendant unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the safety of the defendant or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by the defendant’s release.

34 Referral of defendant to Tribunal

The court must refer the defendant to the Tribunal if a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is returned or entered and an order is not made for the unconditional release of the defendant.”

Summary of the Psychiatric Evidence

46. I will now summarise, in chronological order, the evidence contained in the exhibit that was before me.

Report of Dr Richard Furst dated 11 March 2025

47. Dr Richard Furst is a forensic psychiatrist, who was initially commissioned by the defence to prepare a report addressing the question of the accused’s eligibility for diversion pursuant to ss 14 or 19 of the Act. Dr Furst assessed the accused by audio-visual link on 25 February 2025 and considered the following additional information:-

48. Police facts;

49. Criminal history – bail report;

50. Victorian criminal history; and

51. Justice Health medical records.

52. Dr Furst noted that Mr Batey was 21 years of age, single with no dependants, unemployed and homeless at the time of the offending. He was mostly staying in the Manly and Bondi areas. His family were resident in Victoria.

53. Mr Batey was born in Brisbane and his family moved to Melbourne in 2005 when he was about one year of age. He completed year 10. He described the onset of his mental health problems about 18 months ago (i.e. in September 2023, which roughly coincides with the first offending noted in the Victorian criminal history). He said that he was “struggling to navigate his way through life”. He was hearing voices and found it difficult to think clearly. The “voices” (auditory hallucinations) he was hearing included directions that he harm himself and others. There were two or three voices telling him those things. He said that he was paranoid from about the time he started hearing the voices, and that he felt suicidal at times. At about this time, he moved interstate to Sydney. He received no psychiatric assessment or treatment prior to his arrest in March 2024.

54. Mr Batey denied a history of drug or alcohol abuse. However, Dr Furst noted that his mother had informed nursing staff that Mr Batey had problems with alcohol and that he had conduct difficulties during his childhood. A the time of assessment, Mr Batey was taking 500mg of the anti-psychotic clozapine daily. According to Mr Batey, there was no family history of mental illness.

55. Mr Batey had little memory of the assault police charge which took place at Manly on 9 March 2024. With respect to the assault charge on 13 March 2024, Mr Batey told Dr Furst that he was paranoid and hearing voices at the time that he punched the victim. He was remanded in custody, first at Surry Hills and then at Parklea following this latter incident.

56. At the time of the index offence, Mr Batey reported feeling paranoid, stressed and hearing voices. He was subsequently treated at the Mental Health Screening Unit at the MRRC (from late March to early May 2024), and thereafter at Long Bay Hospital where he has remained. Dr Furst notes that Mr Batey’s psychotic symptoms persisted throughout 2024 and were treatment refractory/resistant to treatment with anti-psychotic medication. He was diagnosed with treatment resistant schizophrenia and has been treated with clozapine, as noted above.

57. On assessment, Mr Batey was co-operative but not expansive. He believed that clozapine had helped, that his mind was clearer and that it was easier to think and “navigate through his emotions”. He continued, however, to hear voices intermittently, the last occasion being approximately 5 days prior to Dr Furst’s interview.

58. Dr Furst reviewed records of Justice Health and noted that Mr Batey had been assessed by mental health nurses and psychiatrists on numerous occasions and that he had undergone extensive treatment. Prior to clozapine, he had been treated with olanzapine, haloperidol, paliperidone depot and clopixol depot. Numerous entries during 2024 indicate that Mr Batey was psychotic. Non-exhaustive episodes in close contemporaneity to the index offending included receiving “negative messages from pillows”, visual and auditory hallucinations, thought disorder, talking to the television, dropping his pants and wiping himself inappropriately. Mr Batey was admitted to the Prince of Wales Hospital from 17 June 2024 to 20 June 2024 after suffering medication side effects (neuroleptic malignant syndrome) from olanzapine and other anti-psychotic medication he was taking at the time.

59. In Dr Furst’s opinion, Mr Batey meets the criteria for treatment resistant schizophrenia. He observes that it is a severe mental disorder characterised by distortions in thinking, perception, emotions, language, sense of self and behaviour. It is frequently associated with considerable disability and impairment in psychosocial function, including detrimental effects on educational and occupational performance.

60. In Dr Furst’s view, from 13 March 2024 to date, Mr Batey has suffered from a mental health impairment as defined in s 4 of the Act. Schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder and a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4(2)(c) of the Act. Mr Batey remains a mentally ill person in need of ongoing treatment in a hospital as he has no viable treatment plan in the community. He believes that Mr Batey should remain in Long Bay Hospital under the care of his treating psychiatrist and his treating team.

Report of Dr Richard Furst dated 12 March 2025

57. Dr Furst reported again on 12 March 2025, on the questions of fitness and his eligibility for a defence of mental health impairment pursuant to s 28 of the Act. He observed that Mr Batey had been charged with the murder of Mr Vuong.

58. Dr Furst was provided the following material:-

59. Crown Case Statement;

60. ERISP recording;

61. Mr Batey’s NSW criminal history;

62. Mr Batey’s Victorian criminal history; and

63. Justice Health medical records.

64. Dr Furst repeats much of what is contained in his report of 11 March 2025. He further notes that Mr Batey told him that the voices he was hearing at the time of the index offending made him feel “clouded”. They were telling him to harm himself and others. He felt suicidal. He could not recall what he was thinking about Mr Vuong at the time, but he remembered feeling “quite stressed”. He was hearing voices three or four times per week at that time. The voices were making him paranoid and making him feel unsafe and unable to think clearly.

65. Mr Batey understood the charge he was facing, his plea options, the role of a lawyer and the prosecutor in court. He understood the functions of judge and jury. Dr Furst believed that he had the capacity to follow proceedings. In Dr Furst’s opinion, Mr Batey was fit to be tried.

66. Dr Furst repeated his review of the Justice Health documents, noted above, and diagnosed Mr Batey with treatment resistant schizophrenia, a psychotic disorder and a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4(2)(c) of the Act. In Dr Furst’s opinion, the timing of the onset of Mr Batey’s psychotic symptoms is unclear. However, there was already psychosocial decline in the months before he was arrested. Mr Batey was homeless and living a long way from his family. He reported being unwell, feeling paranoid and hearing voices commanding him to harm himself and others. There is evidence of erratic and aggressive behaviour which took place in the week prior to the index offence.

67. Dr Furst was of the view that there was no logical reason for Mr Batey’s actions in killing Mr Vuong on 17 March 2024. In his view, the most likely reason was that Mr Batey was acutely psychotic and was responding to auditory hallucinations commanding him to harm other people. His thinking was clouded at that time and he was prone to delusional thinking. Thus at the time he committed the index offence, Mr Batey had a mental health impairment within the meaning of s 4(2)(c) of the Act.

68. In Dr Furst’s opinion, at the time of the offence it is highly likely that Mr Batey was acting in response to psychotic symptoms, that he was delusional and hallucinating such that he did not know that the alleged act was wrong (that is, Mr Batey could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the alleged act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong). In Dr Furst’s view, Mr Batey has the defence pursuant to s 28 of the Act available to him.

Report of Dr Richard Furst dated 14 March 2025

64. Dr Furst’s report of 14 March 2025 addresses Mr Batey’s eligibility for a defence of substantial impairment due to a mental health or cognitive impairment pursuant to s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Dr Furst repeats much of what is contained in his previous reports, but notes that in his view, Mr Batey’s capacity to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, and/or to control himself was substantially impaired by a mental health impairment in the form of schizophrenia at the time of the offending.

Report of Dr Rafe Pulley dated 21 May 2025

65. Dr Rafe Pulley, consultant forensic psychiatrist, reported on 21 May 2025. He conducted an interview with Mr Batey via AVL for 60 minutes. He had before him the following documents:-

66. Crown Case Statement;

67. Mr Batey’s NSW criminal history;

68. ERISP recording;

69. Justice Health records; and

70. Reports of Dr Richard Furst dated 11 March and 14 March 2025.

71. Dr Pulley noted that Mr Batey had been homeless and living on the streets prior to his incarceration in March 2024. Mr Batey reported that he had problems with hearing voices which had started about a year ago and “came on strong”. As he told Dr Furst, Mr Batey told Dr Pulley that he found it “hard to navigate reality”. He said the voices “tell me to harm myself and harm others”. He said that he felt paranoid most of the time because of “how inclined I am to listen to them”. Mr Batey said that he felt that voices possessed him, that they were able to control his thoughts and actions, that they were hostile and scary and that they were real but he did not know where they came from. Mr Batey reported feeling paranoid most of the time. He feared doing what the voice told him to do. He described his mood as “content”.

72. Mr Batey reported hearing voices about 18 months prior to the interview, i.e. commencing toward the end of 2023. He did not tell anyone about the voices until after the death of his cellmate. He was aware of his diagnosis of schizophrenia, with which he agreed. He was not sure if the voices were caused by his schizophrenia. He did not think that his medication (clozapine) made any difference to the voices or his paranoia. Indeed, he was unable to point to any improvements since starting his medication.

73. Mr Batey reported a good childhood, and no issues with alcohol, drugs or violence whilst growing up. After finishing year 10, he worked as a concreter. He left his parents’ home at about age 20, at a time when he stopped “trusting” them, a subject about which he refused to elaborate. He now trusts his parents again, which he believed was a positive development.

74. At the time of the alleged homicide of his cellmate, Mr Batey had been in custody for a few days. He recalled “blacking in and out of consciousness” at the time, but only at night. He found it “hard to navigate the reality”. The voices were “telling me to harm myself and to harm my cellie”. He told Dr Pulley that he had not talked to his cellmate at all, that he did not feel unsafe around his cellmate and that he did not have any reason to want to harm his cellmate. Mr Batey did not remember the death of his cellmate and told Dr Pulley that he did not think that he had killed his cellmate. His first memory after the death of his cellmate was being taken to the police station.

75. On examination, there was no evidence of thought disorder, although Mr Batey did report experiencing intermittent command auditory hallucinations. His affect was somewhat blunted, conveying a lack of emotional range. He appeared to have partial insight into his mental illness, as he acknowledged it. However, in Dr Pulley’s view, Mr Batey’s guardedness and reluctance to divulge psychotic symptoms in any detail, his ongoing belief that the auditory hallucinations were real, his difficulty in accepting responsibility for and his ambivalent feelings about the index offence suggested that his insight was superficial at best.

76. Dr Batey reviewed the Justice Health records, the essential entries of which have been noted by Dr Furst above.

77. In Dr Pulley’s opinion, Mr Batey suffers from treatment resistant schizophrenia. As part of this condition, he suffers from delusions, hallucinations and thought disorder. The delusions have included a belief that other inmates wish to harm him or that he will have to fight inmates. He has experienced passivity phenomena, a delusional perception that his thoughts or actions are under the control of an external entity. So far as the onset of his illness is concerned, Mr Batey reported that he has been hearing voices since about November 2023. His mother reports that there was a clear deterioration in his behaviour in his mid-late adolescence which is consistent with the prodromal phase of schizophrenia. She also reported clear signs of psychosis prior to him being asked to leave the family home, which is consistent with Mr Batey’s own report of the onset of his illness.

78. In Dr Pulley’s view, Mr Batey was suffering from a mental health impairment, namely schizophrenia, at the time of the alleged offending (from 9 March 2025 to 17 March 2025). He notes that schizophrenia is an ongoing disturbance of thought, volition and perception that is clinically significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and which impairs the emotional well-being, judgement and behaviour of Mr Batey, thus satisfying the criteria in s 4 of the Act.

79. At the time of the alleged offending, in Dr Pulley’s opinion, there is ample evidence that Mr Batey already had developed a serious mental illness. By both self-report and collateral history it appears that Mr Batey was experiencing auditory hallucinations at least six months prior to his arrest. The offences which led to his initial arrest are also likely to have been causally related to his schizophrenia. In Dr Pulley’s view it is likely that Mr Batey was suffering from severe symptoms of schizophrenia at the time of the alleged murder on 17 March 2025. The fact that the active symptoms of schizophrenia have not resolved even with high doses of clozapine suggests that Mr Batey’s illness is very severe and was very severe at the time of the alleged offence. Dr Pulley is of the view that Mr Batey was deprived of the ability to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. Dr Pulley thus believes that Mr Batey has a defence available to him pursuant to s 28 of the Act.

80. Dr Pulley notes that a finding of act proven but not criminally responsible would lead to Mr Batey entering the forensic system which will greatly reduce his risk of harm to others upon his eventual release.

Parties’ Submissions

76. Ms Talbert provided the Court with comprehensive and thoughtful written submissions. Mr McMaster adopted them in their entirety. Both submitted that I would easily be satisfied on the evidence that Mr Batey had a mental health impairment (schizophrenia) and that a defence pursuant to s 28(1)(b) of the Act was made out. They submitted that if I was satisfied that the defence was made out, I should enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible. They submitted that I should make orders pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Act and agreed that I should make the consequential orders and directions set out in paragraph 85 below.

Consideration

77. Based on the material in exhibit 1, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Batey committed the acts that caused the death of the deceased. The objective circumstantial evidence allows me to make that finding, and I observe that there is no reasonable hypothesis consistent with any other conclusion. As has been elsewhere observed, some circumstantial cases are overwhelming. This is such a case.

78. The Court, being satisfied that the physical elements of the offence of murder have been proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt, then considers the defence of mental health impairment without considering the question of the mental element of murder; i.e. that the accused had the intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm: see Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500 at [517] and R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064 at [15].

79. As to the question of mental health impairment, both Dr Furst and Dr Pulley agree on a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Based on their evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Batey suffered and continues to suffer from a mental health impairment within the meaning of that term in s 4 of the Act. It is a psychotic disorder, which at the time of carrying out the acts constituting the physical elements of the offence, caused him an ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception and memory, and is regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes. The disturbance impaired and continues to impair Mr Batey’s emotional well-being, judgement and behaviour.

80. Both Dr Furst and Dr Pulley agree that at the time of the offence, Mr Batey did not know that his actions were wrong. Based on their evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that at the time of carrying out the acts that killed Mr Kien Vinh Vuong, Mr Batey had a mental health impairment (schizophrenia) that had the effect that Mr Batey did not know that the acts were wrong, satisfying s 28(1)(b) of the Act.

81. There is no suggestion in the evidence that the accused had or has a cognitive impairment.

82. As I have said, both Mr McMaster and Ms Talbert agree that the evidence establishes a defence of mental health impairment. After a careful consideration of the evidence, and in particular the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Pulley, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defence of mental health impairment is established: s 31(c) of the Act.

83. Accordingly, on 16 December 2025 I entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible pursuant to s 31 of the Act. The verdict entered on the indictment dated 24 October 2025 is “act proven but not criminally responsible”.

84. As I pointed out in R v Trinne (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1457, R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931 and R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345, paraphrasing Johnson J in R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293, it is essential that the community understands the effect of the verdict which has been returned and the orders and directions made by the Court. Mr Batey will remain in custody and be held as a forensic patient under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). He may only be released if the Tribunal is satisfied that the safety of the defendant or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by his release: ss 29(d) and 84(2) of the Act. His case will be reviewed by the Tribunal as soon as practicable and will be subject to review at six monthly intervals: s 78 of the Act. The Tribunal may review him at any time: s 79 of the Act. If Mr Batey is released in the future, it may be with conditions, and if any of those conditions are breached or his mental condition deteriorates to a point where he may become a serious danger to others, the Tribunal may order that he be apprehended and further detained: s 109 of the Act.

Orders

85. On 16 December 2025, I made the following orders and directions:-

86. A special verdict be entered pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) that the act is proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment;

87. Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, I order that Lucas Batey be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law;

88. Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, the Court refers Lucas Batey to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;

89. I direct the Registrar to notify the Minister for Health as soon as practicable of the making of these orders;

90. I direct the Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable of the making of these orders and to provide the Tribunal with the following documentation:

(a) a copy of the Court’s reasons for verdict and for the making of these orders; (b) the transcript of these proceedings; and (c) copies of the exhibit from the proceedings including the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Pulley;

6. I direct that the Registrar notify the Justice Health and Forensic Health Network (Justice Health) as soon as practicable of the verdict and orders in this matter and to provide Justice Health copies of the following documents:

(a) a copy of the reasons of the Court for verdict and the making of these orders; and (b) copies of the exhibit from the proceedings including the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Pulley.

**********