//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2025] NSWSC 1543
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-12-17
McGuire J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Safranko [2025] NSWSC 1543
Hearing dates: 10 December 2025
Date of orders: 10 December 2025
Decision date: 17 December 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: McGuire J
Decision: (1) In relation to the count of murder on the indictment a special verdict pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) of act proven but not criminally responsible is entered.
(2) Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Troy Safranko is to be detained in a Correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.
(3) Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Troy Safranko is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
(4) The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days.
(5) The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days.
(6) The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal a copy of these orders, my reasons for judgment (once they are delivered) and Exhibit A within 7 days.
(7) The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify JusticeHealth and provide a copy of my reasons for judgment (once delivered), these orders and Exhibit A within 7 days.
(8) The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to provide a copy of MFI 1, the victim impact statement of Maxwell Rout dated 9 December 2025 to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within 7 days.
(9) Sequences 2, 3 and 4 on the s 166 certificate are to be remitted to the Local Court pursuant to s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) on Wednesday 4 February 2026 at the Local Court at Burwood.
Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH – Criminal proceedings – murder – special verdict where prosecutor and defence agree that defence of mental health or cognitive impairment available – where accused diagnosed with schizophrenia – Court satisfied that defence established – special verdict entered
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 23A(1)(a), 195(1)(b), 530(1)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 30L
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167, 169
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 31, 32, 33, 34
Cases Cited: R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Troy Safranko (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
R Kotsis (Crown)
S Talbert (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
CrimCorp Defence Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s): 2023/00311745
The accused, Troy Safranko, is charged by indictment that on 1 October 2023 he fatally stabbed and murdered his mother, Katherine Safranko, in her home in Bankstown, New South Wales. That offence, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment when dealt with according to law.
The accused is also charged with three related offences, transferred to this Court pursuant to s 166(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), being offences of damaging property by fire contrary to s 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, causing the death of an animal contrary to s 530(1) of the Crimes Act and knowingly contravening a restriction in an apprehended violence order contrary to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).
The accused was committed for trial from Burwood Local Court on 13 August 2025. On 7 November 2025 the accused was arraigned in this Court and entered a plea of not guilty to one count of murder. On that occasion the parties informed the Court that they would consent to a special verdict pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the MHCIFP Act”) of act proven but not criminally responsible. The matter proceeded before me on 10 December 2025 by way of hearing pursuant to s 31 of the MHCIFP Act.
Following the hearing I made orders on 10 December 2025 as follows:
In relation to the count of murder on the indictment a special verdict pursuant to s 31 of the MHCIFP Act of act proven but not criminally responsible is entered.
Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the MHCIFP Act, Troy Safranko is to be detained in a Correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.
Pursuant to s 34 of the MHCIFP Act, Troy Safranko is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal a copy of these orders, my reasons for judgment (once they are delivered) and Exhibit A within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify JusticeHealth and provide a copy of my reasons for judgment (once delivered), these orders and Exhibit A within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to provide a copy of MFI 1, the victim impact statement of Maxwell Rout dated 9 December 2025 to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within 7 days.
Sequences 2, 3 and 4 on the s 166 certificate are to be remitted to the Local Court pursuant to s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
What follows are my reasons for making those orders.
A joint bundle was tendered at the hearing and became Exhibit A. That exhibit contains the indictment, the s 166 certificate, agreed facts pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), a psychiatric report of Dr Richard Furst dated 7 December 2024, psychiatric reports of Dr Adam Martin dated 25 September 2025 and 5 December 2025 and a document entitled “Witness Accounts Regarding the Accused”.
Counsel for the Crown and counsel for the accused provided written submissions which were of considerable assistance. Neither of the experts were required for cross-examination.
The factual background to the offences is contained in an agreed facts document signed by the accused, his legal representative and the Crown Prosecutor. Those facts can be summarised as follows.
The accused is the only child of the deceased, Ms Safranko. They lived together in Bankstown, New South Wales. At the time of her death, Ms Safranko was 67 years old and the accused was 31 years old.
On 29 September 2023 the accused arrived home early in the morning and entered his mother’s bedroom whilst she was on her bed. The accused lifted his hands and motioned to smash the television. Ms Safranko told the accused to calm down, to which he responded “It’s all your fault, we’re going to die, you haven’t listened to anything I’ve said to you in the last 6 months”, while shaking and yelling. Ms Safranko told the accused that she would help him. The accused jumped onto the bed where his mother was sitting and grabbed her, causing her upper lip to bleed. He then pinned her down on the bed and choked her. Ms Safranko said that she could not breathe, asked the accused to get off and tried to push him away. She got the accused in the ribs and he got up. The incident lasted around one minute. The accused said to his mother “It’s your fault” and slammed the bedroom door shut. He then told her that he was going to kill himself and that she had to kill herself too.
Ms Safranko tried to calm the accused by telling him that she would help him. Following an exchange about her not believing the accused, she again offered to help him and the accused calmed down.
Ms Safranko then told the accused that she was getting dressed and was able to shut her bedroom door with the accused outside. The accused walked back into her bedroom stating that they were going to Newcastle. She tried to say she had commitments that day, to which the accused said “Well you’re not doing that. You’re going to stay here with me”. The deceased grabbed her keys and left the house. The accused yelled out for her to come back, to which she disagreed.
Ms Safranko then went to a neighbour’s property across the road, where AJ and his wife KJ resided. AJ saw her approach waving her hands erratically, looking terrified and trembling. Ms Safranko asked to use AJ’s phone. She said that the accused had throttled her by the neck, hit her on the arm and almost killed her. KJ observed that she was crying, shaking and was scared. Ms Safranko said “he is coming to kill me” and kept saying “He’s going to kill me”.
KJ called the police. The accused then approached the house and stood at the front gate. He was staring at Ms Safranko and yelled “I am going to get the fucking bikies to kill you tonight”. She told the accused to wait there for police to arrive. The accused again said that he was going to get bikies to kill her and her family, and then left.
Police arrived shortly afterwards and conducted a recorded interview with Ms Safranko. They took photographs of her neck and top lip, which showed a small cut.
On 29 September 2023 Ms Holly Orman, a social worker employed by Justice Support Centre Bankstown, was notified of the incident. She telephoned Ms Safranko who told Ms Orman about the incident and that the accused had choked her a few weeks earlier but that she did not report that to police. She told Ms Orman that she was concerned about the accused’s mental health, that he controlled her access to television, social media and telephones and that he had not recently been to work because he believed that his workplace influenced world events and that his workplace was trying to harm them both. Ms Orman advised Ms Safranko who she should contact for assistance.
On 30 September 2023 police arrested the accused for the assault of Ms Safranko. Police served the accused with an apprehended violence order (“AVO”), which prevented him from:
assaulting, threatening or intimidating Ms Safranko or damaging any of her property or harming any of her animals;
approaching or contacting Ms Safranko in any way unless through a lawyer; and
going within 100 metres of any place where Ms Safranko lived or worked, including her current address.
The AVO stated that the accused should apply for a court order or contact police if he needed to collect any belongings from the Bankstown residence.
The accused was granted bail later that day on the condition that he reside with a Mr JC. JC, a 60 year old man and a family friend who lived a short distance from Ms Safranko’s home, was unaware that the accused had nominated his address as his residential address for the grant of bail. At around 10:00 pm on 30 September 2023 the accused attended JC’s home and told JC that he had to stay there because he had used his address to obtain bail. He said that he was in some trouble and that he had an AVO against him, but did not tell JC it was for the protection of Ms Safranko. JC told the accused that he could not stay in his house but that he could instead spend the night in his car, which the accused agreed to do.
Ms Safranko had a market stall at Bankstown Markets from which she sold items she had refurbished. She set up her stall at those markets on 1 October 2023.
JC telephoned Ms Safranko on 1 October 2023 to ask about the accused. During that conversation she told JC that she had been assaulted by the accused, that she had had to call police, that there was an AVO in place against the accused and that he could not live with her at her house. When JC confronted the accused about what had happened the accused refused to give him any detail.
JC wanted to attend the Bankstown Markets and asked the accused if he wished to join him. The accused told him that he was not allowed within 100 metres of his mother due to the AVO. They agreed to attend the markets together and that the accused would stay away from his mother.
JC spoke to Ms Safranko at her market stall. She appeared upset and told him that the accused could not come near her. Ms Safranko was crying and said that she wanted to “get rid of” the AVO and for the accused to live with her again. She told JC that she would prepare some bags of clothing for the accused and asked JC to collect them later.
When they left the markets, JC told the accused that he was going to pick up some of the accused’s belongings from Ms Safranko’s house. The accused said that he could not go to the house. He told JC multiple times that he wanted to kill himself and take his mother with him.
Later on the afternoon of 1 October 2023 JC went to Ms Safranko’s house to collect bags for the accused. At the house Ms Safranko told JC that she loved and missed her son and that she wanted him back. JC collected the bags and took them home. The accused then appeared to become angry when he went through the bags and complained that his laptop and telephone were missing. JC offered to collect those items for him, but the accused said that they were very well hidden.
The accused then asked JC to drive him to a nearby street so he could pick up his telephone and laptop from Ms Safranko’s house. JC later told the police that he agreed to do this because he thought that it was the only way to calm the accused down. The accused directed JC to an address which was a short walk from Ms Safranko’s home. He told JC to wait for him, said that he would be 10 minutes and then walked through a park towards the home.
The accused went to Ms Safranko’s address and entered the house. He then stabbed Ms Safranko with a knife multiple times to her head and neck, causing a laceration and fractures to her skull. She died as a result of her injuries.
The accused then set fire to clothing, a mobile telephone, a laptop and a device that may have been an iPad in the bathtub. The fire caused damage to the bathtub, bathroom walls and ceiling. Smoke from the fire spread throughout the house and caused damage to the walls and ceiling.
After he had waited for around 20 minutes JC drove towards Ms Safranko’s house to check on her. He parked his car in the driveway and yelled “Kathy, Kathy, are you alright?”. JC then heard the accused yell back “Call the police. I’ve got a knife. I killed Kathy. I stabbed her in the back in the shower. The place is alight. Call the fire brigade”. JC asked the accused if Ms Safranko was alive to which the accused responded “No, she’s dead.” He ran out of the front yard with the knife yelling “I’ve got a knife. I’ve got a knife. I killed her.” JC called triple zero.
The police arrived a short time later and saw the accused standing on the footpath, holding a knife which appeared to have blood on it. They approached the accused and directed him to drop the knife, which he did not do. The accused yelled “They shouldn’t have given me bail”. He then ran away from police towards the street, was struck in the back with a police taser and fell to the ground. He was handcuffed and cautioned. The accused then said “Traffic logistics paid the Judge … I should not be out on bail … They were threatening my family with rape and murder. Listen, I had to save my family because they were going to do all these things, I swear to god”.
Fire and Rescue Officers then attended the house and forced entry through the back door. They located Ms Safranko’s deceased body immediately inside, lying face down. She had suffered major head trauma. There was a pool of blood around her head. Ms Safranko’s cat, which was nearby in a pool of blood, was also dead.
Firefighters extinguished the fire and located a fuel can outside the front bedroom and observed blood spots leading between the back patio and kitchen. They also found a metal can with a piece of white material inside it. Subsequent testing detected petrol on that material.
A short time later paramedics arrived and confirmed that Ms Safranko was deceased.
The accused was taken to Bankstown Police Station and then to Bankstown Hospital. Ambulance records note that the accused was agitated but was not violent or threatening. He said that he was being watched by the “Muslim community” and that he should not have been let out on bail.
Dr Alis Carmody assessed the accused in the emergency department at Bankstown Hospital. He opined that the accused was mentally ill and noted that he expressed repeated paranoid delusions of unknown assailants threatening to kill him.
On 2 October 2023 the accused was reviewed by Dr Revanthi Injeti. The accused said that there was a conspiracy at hand. He said that he and his mother got into arguments when he complained to his mother that people were following him. He said that his mother had falsely accused him of assaulting her. He claimed that when he went to the house to collect his belongings other people were in the house and attacked them. The accused told hospital staff that he saw others kill his mother and then ran out to tell someone to call the police and fire brigade. He said that he had been receiving threats to himself and his family from an organisation who were involved with a cult and that there was money involved. The accused told hospital staff that “they make it look like accidents” and that he received communication from the organisation by telephone messages. The accused said that he was devastated about his mother’s death. He said they argued verbally but never physically and that he would never hurt her. He said that he loved his mother.
The accused was later discharged and conveyed back to Bankstown Police Station. He participated in an electronically recorded interview with police with a support person present. During that interview he told police the following account of events.
The accused said that Ms Safranko was a perfect mother and that they had a good relationship, although they sometimes had verbal arguments. He said that on 29 September 2023 they had an argument but he denied choking her. He said that he got JC to drive him to the home to collect his missing items and that his mother unlocked the door to let him in and then locked the door behind him. He said that they apologised to one another and then he went to his room to look for his belongings. After about ten minutes he walked out to the back with his mother to talk because it was cooler out there. He said that an intruder then started to attack his mother. He stated that one intruder took him down and he went to the ground, another intruder was in the bathroom doing something and a third intruder was crouching in the kitchen. He said that there were three intruders who wore black clothing with balaclavas and gloves. He described them as skinny and not very big. He said that he went to the back of the house and saw his mother on the ground, went through a glass sliding door and picked up a knife that was on the ground to defend himself. He said that he did not see any blood on the knife and that he did not see the dead cat. He said that when he walked out to his mother she was dead and all of the intruders had vanished. He denied killing his mother or telling JC that he was going to kill himself and her.
The accused told the police that he was not taking drugs and that he had stopped taking his medication after he got out of Banks House, which is the mental health unit at Bankstown Hospital. He said that people had been following him for the last 6 months and sending him messages.
Subsequent forensic examination of a blood stain found on the accused’s right foot determined that Ms Safranko’s DNA could not be excluded as a contributor. Forensic examination of the knife determined that the accused’s fingerprint was located on the knife handle and his DNA was located on the knife’s spine.
A post mortem examination was conducted. Extensive head injury was noted with a large complex laceration on the right side of the scalp with multiple cranial fractures. The laceration was surrounded by other smaller lacerations and sharp force injuries. A long incised wound was noted on the left side of the head which was surrounded by other smaller injuries. There was extensive bruising of the eyelids. Three stab wounds were noted on the neck. One of those wounds caused partial transection of the right carotid artery and the left internal jugular vein. The cause of death was blunt and sharp force injuries to the body.
The accused had previously presented to Bankstown police station on 16 May 2023. He presented with paranoid thoughts, did not believe the police were real police and refused to talk. He told police he was worried about his and his mother’s safety, and spoke about homeless people and junkies on the street.
Police spoke with Ms Safranko who told them that she was concerned about the accused’s declining mental health and that he had exhibited increasing paranoia and strange behaviour. She told police that he would call her and tell her to immediately attend police stations for her own safety and that he would drive around aimlessly, thinking he was being followed.
The accused was then admitted as an involuntary patient at Banks House. He was noted to be paranoid, a risk of causing harm to himself, family relationships, finances and misadventure and was unwilling to take oral medication. He was discharged nine days later and referred to the Community Mental Health Emergency Team.
His discharge summary noted that his mother had reported a long history of paranoia. He presented with vague paranoia, and believed he was not safe and that people were out to get him. He was prescribed Olanzapine, to which he was noted to have had a “great response” and Abilify. The dosage of Olanzapine was later reduced and Abilify was increased. He was reviewed and deemed safe for discharge. He denied further paranoia or thoughts of self harm or harm to others. His discharge plan included follow ups with his general practitioner and Community Mental Health Emergency Team and medication including Apriprazole and Olanzapine to wean as he became stable.
He immediately ceased taking the prescribed psychotropic medication on his discharge.
Exhibit A contains a document which details observations about the accused by family members and friends of the deceased. Those accounts need not be repeated.
It is sufficient to note that throughout the accounts there are references to the accused reporting his beliefs to others. That included that he believed that people were watching him, people were trying to kill him and his mother, he interpreted number plates as threats to rape and kill his family and reported that people were able to remotely access his telephone.
In his report dated 7 December 2024 Dr Furst reported that he had assessed the accused on 29 October 2024.
He recorded the accused’s history, noting that he began to experience high levels of anxiety in his early teenage years and struggled to concentrate at school. He first heard voices in his early twenties and this continued intermittently throughout his twenties. The accused reported to Dr Furst that the voices told him to kill himself and he began to feel paranoid about people being out to get him.
In May 2023 the accused suffered an episode of acute mental illness, which resulted in his admission to Bankstown Hospital. During this admission he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The accused told Dr Furst that leading up to that admission he was hearing voices and was being followed by people. He said that their faces changed. He described his belief that threats were being made to him through number plates on motor vehicles and stories on television relating to burning down buildings. The accused said that people had put cameras in trees outside his house and were chasing him. He said that he heard voices telling him to kill himself, he believed that people were following him and that their faces were transforming which made him fearful.
The accused reported to Dr Furst that at the time of his mother’s death he saw intruders in his house and that their eyes were changing. He said that he was hearing voices badly, he blacked out and that when he came to that was when his mother was killed. He stated “I’m pretty sure the men in balaclavas didn’t do it. I had no control of my body or my mind at the time.” The accused described previous occasions when he blacked out. He told Dr Furst that he did not know how the fire started. He said that he now knew that his thoughts at the time, including about the three intruders, were not real.
Dr Furst noted that the accused was still suffering residual symptoms of schizophrenia in the form of receiving messages from the television and hearing voices, but noted that they were controlled, less frequent and were no longer telling the accused to kill himself.
Dr Furst diagnosed the accused with schizophrenia based on the accused’s persistent and recurrent psychotic symptoms, particularly paranoid delusions, delusions of reference and auditory hallucinations. Dr Furst noted that schizophrenia generally is a chronic and severe mental disorder.
On the topic of whether he had a defence pursuant to s 28 of the MHCIFP Act of being not criminally responsible by reason of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, Dr Furst opined that, although the accused was likely aware of his actions at the time, he was most likely acting in response to his paranoid beliefs, persecutory delusions, delusions of reference and/or auditory hallucinations. These symptoms caused his belief that he and his mother were in serious danger and that others were conspiring against them. Dr Furst said that his actions were driven by his psychotic symptoms and gross impairment of reality-testing.
Dr Furst was of the opinion that the accused has a mental health impairment for the purpose of s 23A(1)(a) of the Crimes Act by virtue of his schizophrenia, which is a psychotic illness under s 4(2)(c) of the MHCIFP Act. Dr Furst opined that the accused was unable to reason about the wrongfulness of his actions relevant to the alleged offence as he was psychotic and delusional in his thinking, and that he probably had an impairment in his capacity to control himself due to his acute psychosis.
Dr Furst notes that management of the accused under s 28 of the MHCIFP Act and oversight of the accused by the Mental Health Review Tribunal is the preferable legal and clinical pathway for this accused.
In his report dated 25 September 2025 Dr Martin records that the accused is currently housed in an area in gaol for mentally ill inmates. The accused told Dr Martin that his mental state was going well and had improved. He told him that he still hears voices but that they were minimal compared to previously and attributed this improvement to anti-psychotic medication. The accused told Dr Martin that the television and radio sometimes send messages to him and that he believed that number plates on motor vehicles were evidence of a legal organisation committing crimes, including setting fires to businesses, cars and bush fires. He told Dr Martin that the organisation placed cameras outside his house, communicated with him through number plates and through incidents on the news shown on television. He believed that this was the case at the time of his interview with Dr Martin. He believed that he was placed into exile by the organisation and that they had threatened to kill his family. The accused also told Dr Martin that he felt threatened by people wearing certain clothing.
At the time of the report, the accused was prescribed Olanzapine, which he had again started taking in custody.
The accused told Dr Martin that he believed his late father had suffered from schizophrenia and had been admitted to the Bankstown Hospital Mental Health Unit with paranoia.
The accused gave Dr Martin a similar account of the index offending as that given to Dr Furst. He said that at the time he was aware of number plates changing and believed that people’s faces were changing. He was experiencing poor sleep and confusion and was unmedicated. He told Dr Martin that he blacked out and saw three men wearing balaclavas whose “eyes were transferring into others’ eyes”. He was not sure if it was these men who killed his mother. He denied that after leaving the house he had said that he killed his mother.
In relation to the previous incident of choking his mother, the accused told Dr Martin that he remembered a struggle where he grabbed her neck but did not remember strangling her. He said this occurred because his mother did not believe what he told her about people out to get him.
Dr Martin also diagnosed the accused with schizophrenia. He opined that during the index events the accused experienced auditory hallucinations and persecutory delusions which directly related to the offending. Dr Martin records that the material strongly suggested an evolving psychotic illness manifested by systematised persecutory delusions with ideas of reference such as ascribing personal significance to car registration plates. Dr Martin noted that following the index events the accused was assessed as psychotic.
Dr Martin also opined that the accused meets the criteria for mental health impairment pursuant to the MHCIFP Act and noted that the accused had an ongoing disturbance of thought and perception that would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes which impaired his emotional wellbeing, judgment and behaviour. He noted that the mental health impairment did not arise from any substance use.
In relation to the availability of a defence of mental health impairment, Dr Martin was of the view that the accused would have known the nature and quality of the acts alleged but would not have known that it was wrong and would not have been able to reason with moderate sense and composure about whether the act was wrong as perceived by reasonable people. Dr Martin opined that the alleged violence was likely to be directly related to underlying systematised paranoid beliefs which resulted in terror and rage. The accused’s psychotic and distorted beliefs involved his mother and a belief that she had to die.
Dr Martin opined that the accused’s account of seeing the intruders is likely a delusional confabulation rather than a deliberate lie. He was of the view that malingering in relation to his mental illness is unlikely and that the accused’s exculpatory accounts are not inconsistent with his inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or an inability to reason with composure.
Dr Martin was of the opinion that the accused had a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment for the purposes of s 28 of the MHCIFP Act due to his untreated schizophrenia and that the accused’s acute psychosis substantially impaired his capacity to control himself or understand whether his actions were right or wrong.
Dr Martin generally agreed with the findings of Dr Furst. Dr Martin noted that the accused’s complex forensic needs required forensic rehabilitation in a secure environment, most appropriately met under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in a secure forensic mental health facility.
In a supplementary report dated 5 December 2025 Dr Martin confirmed that he had reviewed a summary of various witness statements in the document entitled “Witness Accounts Regarding the Accused” and expressed the opinion that the contents of that document was consistent with the opinion in his report dated 25 September 2025 that the accused had a major mental illness and severely disordered behaviour driven by psychosis.
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.
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.
The defence of mental or cognitive impairment under s 28 was noted by Johnson J in R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292 at [84] as having two limbs. The first limb is that the accused, at the time of carrying out the act, had a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment or both: s 28(1) MHCIFP Act. The second is the relevant impairment had one of the effects referred to in s 28(1)(a) or (b): R v Siemek (No 1) at [85] – [86].
The presence of each limb is to be determined on the balance of probabilities: s 28(2). Until the contrary is proved it is presumed that the accused did not have a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment or both.
The reference in s 28(2) to a jury determining whether the accused had a mental health impairment includes reference to a judge in proceedings determined by judge alone: s 6.
The term “mental health impairment” is defined in s 4 of the MHCIFP Act. That section provides 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.
If a jury, or judge acting alone, is satisfied that the defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment has been established a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible must be returned: s 30.
In circumstances where the defendant and prosecutor agree on impairment, s 31 applies.
If a special verdict of act proved but not criminally responsible is returned, the effect of this is set out in s 33 of the MHCIFP Act:
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.
The parties agree that the accused caused the death of the deceased and that the evidence establishes the defence of mental health impairment. The joint position of the parties was that it would therefore be open to the Court, after considering the evidence, to be satisfied that the defence is so established and to enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible under s 31 of the MHCIFP Act.
The Crown submitted that the Court would be satisfied that the accused had a mental health impairment and that the impairment had one of the effects referred to in s 28(1)(a) or (b) of the MHCIFP Act.
The Crown in its written submissions pointed to the accused’s symptoms of mental illness which were observable in the months prior to the index offence. The accused was prescribed medication, but stopped using the medication which exacerbated his symptoms. The behaviour by the accused and the symptoms he exhibited were consistent with the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Martin. The psychiatrists agreed as to the accused’s mental illness and there was no material before the Court which would cast doubt on their evidence.
The Crown submitted that the Court should not make an order for the accused’s release from custody under s 33(1)(c). Counsel for the accused agreed with the orders proposed by the Crown.
I am satisfied on the material tendered that the accused attended his mother’s home on 1 October 2023, in contravention of an apprehended domestic violence order, and caused the fatal wounds which resulted in her death. I note the agreement of the parties that the evidence establishes that the accused caused his mother’s death.
The psychiatric evidence establishes that at the time he committed the offences the accused was suffering from schizophrenia which was persistent and recurrent and resulted in him suffering symptoms which included paranoid delusions, delusions of reference and auditory hallucinations. I accept Dr Furst’s opinion that the accused was suffering from acute and debilitating effects of his schizophrenia at the time of the offending conduct.
Both Dr Furst and Dr Martin agree that the accused’s acute psychosis, arising from his untreated schizophrenia, completely impaired his capacity to reason about the wrongfulness of his actions with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his alleged acts, as perceived by reasonable people, were wrong.
The opinion of the experts is supported by the accused’s history which included an involuntary admission to the Bankstown Hospital Mental Health Unit in May 2023 where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia and being assessed as mentally ill at the time of his arrest on 1 October 2023.
Further support is found in the references to the accused telling others that he was hearing voices, believed that he was being chased and persecuted and believed that others were out to kill him and his mother. The fact that the accused continues to experience residual symptoms of schizophrenia, notwithstanding medication, also supports the expert opinions.
I am satisfied that at the time of killing his mother the accused suffered from schizophrenia and was acting in response to paranoid beliefs, persecutory delusions, delusions of reference and auditory hallucinations. Drs Martin and Furst agree that schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder under s 4(2) of the MHCIFP Act.
I accept Dr Martin’s opinion that the accused’s schizophrenia is an ongoing disturbance of thought which is significant for clinical diagnostic purposes and which impaired the accused’s emotional well-being, judgment or behaviour under s 4(1). Dr Furst did not expressly address the s 4(1) factors in his report. However, I accept that in describing schizophrenia as a chronic and severe mental disorder which is characterised by distortions in thinking, perception, emotions, language, sense of self and behaviour and in describing the accused’s symptoms and that he suffered persistently and on an ongoing basis, Dr Furst has sufficiently addressed the requirements of s 4(1).
Following my review of the evidence I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that each of the limbs under s 28 has been established. At the time he murdered his mother the accused had a mental health impairment which had the effect that he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. Accordingly, I am satisfied that he is not criminally responsible for the offence of murdering his mother on 1 October 2023.
In the circumstances s 31 requires that a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible must be entered.
After I made orders on 10 December 2025 a victim impact statement by Maxwell Rout was read in open court.
Section 30L of the C**rimes (Sentencing P**rocedure) A**ct 1999 (NSW) applies to the receipt of such a statement. That section states that the Court may only accept a victim impact statement after a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible under the MHCIFP Act had been entered and must acknowledge receipt of the statement.
Mr Rout’s statement speaks of Ms Safranko in loving and glowing terms. Mr Rout describes that Ms Safranko became his partner after his wife of 40 years had died. He describes her caring and generous nature and states that she volunteered her time including with meals on wheels and helping others.
Mr Rout states that he is devastated by the fact and manner of her death.
I have no doubt that Mr Rout’s sentiments are mirrored by many of Ms Safranko’s relatives, friends and acquaintances. I am sure that he and others remain distraught and saddened by their loss.
I acknowledge, in the circumstances of the accused’s mental health and the orders that I have made, that the result of these proceedings must feel hollow.
All that I can do is acknowledge receipt of the victim impact statement, thank Mr Rout for preparing it and offer him, Ms Safranko’s relatives and her friends my condolences.
On 10 December 2025 I made the following orders:
In relation to the count of murder on the indictment a special verdict pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) of act proven but not criminally responsible is entered.
Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Troy Safranko is to be detained in a Correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.
Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Troy Safranko is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal a copy of these orders, my reasons for judgment (once they are delivered) and Exhibit A within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to notify JusticeHealth and provide a copy of my reasons for judgment, these orders and Exhibit A within 7 days.
The Registrar of the Supreme Court is to provide a copy of MFI 1, the victim impact statement of Maxwell Rout dated 9 December 2025 to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within 7 days.
Sequences 2, 3 and 4 on the s 166 certificate are to be remitted to the Local Court pursuant to s 169 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) on Wednesday 4 February 2026 at the Local Court at Burwood.
**********
R
Safranko [2025] NSWSC 1543