R v Woodham

[2023] NSWSC 1345

Supreme Court of NSW|2023-11-06|Before: Weinstein J, Hamill J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2023-11-06

Before

Weinstein J, Hamill J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (25 paragraphs)

[1]

JUDGMENT

The accused, Louis Woodham, stands charged with the murder of Denise Brameld contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. On 29 August 2022, Hamill J conducted a fitness hearing and on 30 August 2022 found that Mr Woodham was unfit to be tried pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act), and that he may become fit to be tried within 12 months pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the Act. His Honour referred the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) pursuant to s 49(1) of the Act, and remanded him in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act: see R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154. On 3 January 2023, the MHRT determined that Mr Woodham was not fit to be tried for the offence for which he was found unfit and would not become fit to be tried within 12 months after Hamill J's finding of 30 August 2022. The matter was therefore listed for special hearing.
The accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental health impairment. The Crown Prosecutor 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.
I therefore conducted a special hearing on 6 November 2023 to determine whether or not the evidence established a defence of mental health impairment. I was so satisfied and 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.
I am grateful to Ms Keay who appeared on behalf of the Crown, and to Mr Fraser who appeared on behalf of the accused, for the collaborative manner in which they conducted these proceedings. As I explained to the various persons who were in attendance and online, 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. I explained that this was not a trial by judge alone, and 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 the 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.

[5]

Events of 11 June 2021

When the accused's father woke up at 8:30 am on 11 June 2021, the accused was awake and in the shed, which his father thought was unusual. He made the accused breakfast and took it out to him. He noticed fresh cuts on his son's fingers which he believed had not been there the previous afternoon when he left for the Bowling Club. He asked the accused how he had obtained the cuts. The accused pointed to the kitchen area of the shed, indicating the place where he had received the cuts to his hands.
At about 9:30 am on 11 June 2021, Mr Hamilton tried to call his mother again. There was no answer. He had the day off work and was planning to fix his mother's fence. He telephoned his sister who had also not heard from their mother. He checked Facebook and observed that his mother had not been active on her account for 17 hours. He became worried and decided to check on his mother. He left his house at 11 am and arrived at his mother's home at about 11:15 am.
Upon his arrival, Mr Hamilton noticed that the curtains and blinds were closed and that there was no washing on the line, which was unusual. The back gate was locked, which was also unusual. He jumped the gate into the back yard. He observed the back door to be wide open. The internal screen and wooden doors were also wide open. As he got to the porch, he observed his mother laying on the floor of the kitchen. There was blood all over her face and neck. He ran out of the house yelling for the accused's father.
The accused's father heard Mr Hamilton screaming and came from his house to assist him. They both observed lacerations to the deceased's throat and face. There was a large serrated bread knife laying under her chin which appeared to be still in her throat.
Mr Hamilton called triple zero at 11:18 am. During the call, he passed the phone to the accused's father as he was too distressed to speak. Mr Hamilton then told the accused's father that he had to use a phone to call his sister, and he ran to the accused's premises where the accused was seated in the pergola. There was a phone in the pergola where the accused was sitting. Mr Hamilton said to the accused, "It's mum" and grabbed the phone. The accused said, "It's better reception out the front of the pergola."
When police arrived at the deceased's home at 11:25 am, an ambulance was already present. The ambulance officers entered the back enclosed veranda of the house. There was an old dog lying in a dog bed on the veranda. They observed a small, bladed knife on the step leading into the kitchen which appeared to be clean and had a bent tip.
When they entered the kitchen, the ambulance officers observed the deceased lying on her back with the back of her head slightly raised against the door. The deceased was wearing a purple, long sleeve jumper which was halfway up her chest and black pants. There was a large amount of blood on the deceased's head and torso and on the floor and cupboards around her. The deceased was observed to have at least 5 to 6 puncture marks to the left side of her face and a deep laceration to her throat. To the left side of her neck was a deep laceration running down the length of her neck and across to the right side. Laying near the left side of the deceased's neck almost on her left collar bone was a large, serrated knife with blood stains on the handle and blade. Footprints in blood were observed around the body of the deceased.
A kitchen drawer was open and a frying pan was on the kitchen bench. A bin lid was on the floor next to the left arm of the deceased and the bin was on its side. The kitchen was otherwise clean and tidy.
The first police officers to arrive at the scene spoke to the accused's father, who told them that he had concerns about the behaviour of his son that morning. He told them that he had observed fresh cuts on the accused's hands. He said to police, "My son has been to gaol before and he has a temper. I noticed some cuts on his hands. Christ I hope he's not involved in this."
The accused's father returned to his home after police arrived to speak to the accused. He yelled to the accused, "You better not have had anything to do with this. Tell me the truth." The accused replied, "Nothing to do with me."

[12]

Legislative framework

Sections 4 and 5 of the Act define mental health impairment and cognitive 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. 5 Cognitive impairment (1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has a cognitive impairment if - (a) the person has an ongoing impairment in adaptive functioning, and (b) the person has an ongoing impairment in comprehension, reason, judgment, learning or memory, and (c) the impairments result from damage to or dysfunction, developmental delay or deterioration of the person's brain or mind that may arise from a condition set out in subsection (2) or for other reasons. (2) A cognitive impairment may arise from any of the following conditions but may also arise for other reasons - (a) intellectual disability, (b) borderline intellectual functioning, (c) dementia, (d) an acquired brain injury, (e) drug or alcohol related brain damage, including foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, (f) autism spectrum disorder
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.
Section 31 of the Act provides the Court with the power 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.
I will now summarise some of the psychiatric evidence which was before me.

[14]

Report of 3 June 2022

Dr Martin prepared a report addressing the issues of Mr Woodham's fitness to be tried and whether there was a defence of mental health impairment available to him. Dr Martin interviewed Mr Woodham via audio-visual link (AVL) on 19 May 2022.
Dr Martin observed that Mr Woodham presented in a somewhat vague manner throughout the interview, and that he could only give brief responses using basic language. Mr Woodham described his mood as "hanging in there". He reported to Dr Martin that he had problems with his memory. He denied currently hearing voices, although he had heard voices about six months previously. He felt paranoid.
Mr Woodham could not recall the name of his treating psychiatrist but told Dr Martin that his current prescriptions were Seroquel and "a few other pills, not sure of their names", which included a fortnightly injection.
Mr Woodham reported being admitted to a mental health unit when he was 20 years old. He denied a history of self-harm and denied that he was taking psychotropic medication before his arrest for the instant offending, although he said that he was supposed to be taking Seroquel whilst on parole.
Mr Woodham reported first using cannabis at age 13 and methamphetamine at age 14. He reported past intravenous drug use. At about the time of his arrest he was smoking a bong every couple of hours but denied methamphetamine use. He described previous alcohol use when he was younger.
Mr Woodham reported having a good childhood. He grew up in Nowra with his father. He left school at age 14 and has problems reading and writing. He denied contact with the juvenile justice system but told Dr Martin that he had been incarcerated as an adult on eight occasions. He denied a family history of mental health problems.
Dr Martin reported that Mr Woodham presented as alert and oriented to place and day, although not month. He performed poorly during testing of concentration, arithmetic and basic word generation. There did not appear to be any observable psychomotor disturbance. Mr Woodham did not display obvious expressions of delusional ideation or hallucination, and he was not thought disordered. Dr Martin observed a poverty of expressed thought. Mr Woodham did not present as obviously depressed, and he expressed no suicidal ideation.
Mr Woodham told Dr Martin that at the time of the events, he was hearing voices which said, "murder or else I'd be murdered". He was unable to further identify the nature of the auditory hallucinations. He had heard the voices for many years. He could not recall the offending.
In Dr Martin's opinion, Mr Woodham's presentation was consistent with a person experiencing the negative syndrome of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. In his view, although Mr Woodham presented as reasonably stable and calm, he is prone to unprovoked violence associated with disordered internal thought processes or hallucinations as part of a major mental illness.
Dr Martin was of the view that Mr Woodham had an inadequate understanding of the legal process and could not meaningfully participate in court proceedings. In his view, Mr Woodham lacked capacity to make a defence to the charge, which was a consequence of chronic mental illness superimposed on a likely low average intelligence and probable cognitive deficits, as a result of mental illness and substance abuse. Dr Martin believed that Mr Woodham was unfit to plead and to be tried, and that he was more likely than not to remain unfit over twelve months.
Dr Martin believed that fitness issues should be resolved before addressing the issue of whether or not Mr Woodham was suffering a mental health impairment at the time of the offending. However, he noted that the offending occurred in direct nexus to active symptoms of mental illness such as auditory hallucinations and persecutory ideation.

[16]

Report of 20 February 2023

Dr Martin was asked to provide an opinion about the availability to Mr Woodham of the defence of mental health impairment which would result in the entering of a verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" pursuant to the Act. He was provided with the reasons of the MHRT of 3 January 2023.
In Dr Martin's opinion, a court would find that Mr Woodham had a mental health impairment at the time of the offending, i.e., he was a person who had an ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition and perception, which would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes and which impaired his emotional wellbeing, judgment and behaviour. The mental health impairment arose from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and the impairment would not have been caused solely by the temporary effect of injecting a substance, or a substance use disorder. Dr Martin considered that Mr Woodham's continuing presentation was consistent with a chronic psychotic disorder which demonstrated an enduring severe psychotic mental illness. He observed that Mr Woodham had been recently assessed as exhibiting thought disorder in a controlled environment whilst receiving high doses of anti-psychotic medication.
As to s 28 of the Act, Dr Martin observed that whilst the offending appeared to have been deliberate and intentional, the salient issue would be whether or not Mr Woodham knew at the time that the act was wrong. In Dr Martin's view, it is likely that Mr Woodham would not have had the capacity to reason with moderate composure about the wrongfulness of his alleged behaviour as a direct consequence of chronic mental illness. Thus, in his view, Mr Woodham had a defence of mental health impairment available to him.
In Dr Martin's opinion, Mr Woodham has significant risk factors for the future and requires assertive management for the foreseeable future in a highly controlled, secure forensic therapeutic environment with the oversight of the MHRT. His risk factors include a history of serious violence, substance use disorder, other anti-social behaviour, relationship and employment problems, major mental disorder, instability and impaired treatment response.

[17]

Report of Dr Kerri Eagle dated 21 April 2022

Dr Eagle conducted a psychiatric assessment of Mr Woodham on 31 March 2022 for 90 minutes via AVL. She was provided with extensive material from the police brief. Dr Eagle has previously prepared reports with respect to the accused in earlier proceedings on behalf of the ODPP, and thus was familiar with the accused's psychiatric history prior to the instant offending.
At the date of the assessment, the accused was 38 years old. Prior to his arrest, he was living with his father and spoke to his mother regularly by telephone. He had a girlfriend but was unsure if the relationship continued . He has no children. He was receiving the disability support pension (DSP) for his "depression and anxiety." He told Dr Eagle that he could not read or write.
Mr Woodham reported to Dr Eagle that his mood was good and that he had been in lockdown a lot, including for 12 days when he contracted Covid-19. He had gained weight since his arrest and was eating normally. Mr Woodham said that he would "toss and turn" at night and that he was worried about his court case and what he had done. He was unable to identify the medications he was being prescribed. He was unable to describe his symptoms and was unsure why he was sent to the mental health unit at Long Bay Hospital.
Mr Woodham reported that he had last heard voices the last time he was in gaol, and denied experiencing auditory hallucinations since his arrest for the instant offending. He denied feeling hopeless or suicidal. When Dr Eagle asked Mr Woodham what occurred after his release from custody in April 2021, he told her that whilst in custody, he was prescribed quetiapine, but that he stopped taking it because he was not given it after he left gaol. He said that following release, there had been no mental health follow up.
Upon release in April 2021, Mr Woodham reported that "everything was fine". He was not working. He was receiving the DSP, sleeping adequately and had good mood. He told Dr Eagle that "the victim owed me money". Mr Woodham denied mental illness or feeling stressed. He told Dr Eagle that he was focused on "getting my money back" and denied using illicit substances or alcohol. He spent much of his time with his father.
Mr Woodham confirmed that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia but was not able to say why. He denied hearing voices, paranoia, referential ideas or passivity phenomena, despite previous assessments to the contrary. He told Dr Eagle that "there is nothing wrong with me". Mr Woodham attributed his previous symptoms to the use of "ice".
Dr Eagle set out, at length, the accused's documented psychiatric history which included a Justice Health report dated 5 November 2018 which described the accused's presentation as "floridly psychotic with manic features" with "no insight into his illness." It was also reported that the accused appeared to "have a psychotic illness, characterised by thought disorder, persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations." Justice Health clinical records also disclosed that Mr Woodham had a diagnosis of schizophrenia since 2004 and a substance abuse disorder since adolescence.
During his current period in custody, Mr Woodham has refused medication, including prescriptions for olanzapine and mirtazapine. He has been non-compliant and agitated at times, as well as physically violent. He has displayed psychotic symptoms such as grandiosity, talking to himself and hearing voices. On 27 September 2021, Mr Woodham was commenced on zuclopenthixol decanoate 200mg and zuclopenthixol acetate 100mg, which gradually improved his mental state for about a month. In November 2021, he was prescribed zuclopenthixol decanoate 400mg fortnightly. In January 2022, he was prescribed clozapine, but he refused this medication.
When the accused was asked about the offending, he told Dr Eagle that the deceased owed him $100,000, which he had loaned to her in cash, and which he said she refused to repay. He denied using illicit drugs or alcohol on the day before the incident. He said that on the day of the offence, he just "jumped up and went over there", and could not say what made him do so. He said that he walked into the deceased's home and stabbed her. Mr Woodham said that he felt bad. When asked by Dr Eagle if he felt that the deceased deserved what happened to her, he answered "no".
Mr Woodham was aware of the charge against him but could not recall the specific allegations. He told Dr Eagle that he had no intention to murder the deceased. As he could not read, he was unfamiliar with the brief of evidence.
Mr Woodham reported to Dr Eagle that he had a great childhood without trauma. He attended school to year 9, although never learnt to read or write. Thereafter, he commenced work as a bricklayer. He began an apprenticeship at TAFE but could not complete it. He worked as a bricklayer for four years before he was shot in a drive-by shooting. He said that he has no feeling in his left arm.
On examination, Dr Eagle reported that Mr Woodham was cooperative with the assessment but irritable at times. He was blunt in affect and gave monosyllabic or short answers. He was generally logical and coherent. He denied all psychiatric phenomena, including the symptoms which resulted in his admission to Long Bay Hospital. He provided illogical explanations at times and demonstrated some persecutory ideas, concrete thinking and a lack of mental flexibility. Dr Eagle observed that Mr Woodham had limited insight into the nature of his illness and displayed impaired judgement and reasoning.
Dr Eagle confirmed Mr Woodham's established diagnosis of schizophrenia. He has continued to display symptoms despite treatment, which suggests that his illness is treatment resistant. In Dr Eagle's opinion, Mr Woodham appears to have suffered from developmental cognitive impairment, but the decline in his cognitive function may also be the result of untreated chronic psychotic illness and substance abuse. In Dr Eagle's opinion, Mr Woodham would require neuropsychological testing to confirm the extent of any cognitive impairment.
In Dr Eagle's view, the accused was unfit to plead or be tried. Further, in her view, at the time of the offending the accused was most likely experiencing psychosis such that he had a mental health impairment. Dr Eagle considered that while Mr Woodham was likely able to understand that it was legally wrong to stab the deceased, due to an episode of acute psychosis and associated impairments, he was likely unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his conduct was wrong.

[22]

Consideration

Based on the material in Exhibits 1 and 2, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Woodham committed the acts that killed the deceased. The objective circumstantial evidence alone allows me to make the finding, and I observe that there is no reasonable hypothesis consistent with any other conclusion. That being the case, the direct evidence of Mr Woodham in the form of admissions made to police, and which might otherwise on their own have been unreliable, support the conclusion I have come to.
Both Dr Martin and Dr Eagle agree on a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Based on their evidence, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Woodham suffered and continues to suffer from a mental health impairment, being schizophrenia, 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 act constituting 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 impairs Mr Woodham's emotional well-being, judgement and behaviour. That mental health impairment was present on 10 June 2021, and continues to be present.
Both Dr Martin and Dr Eagle agree that at the time of the offence, the accused 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 Ms Brameld, Mr Woodham had a mental health impairment (schizophrenia) that had the effect that Mr Woodham did not know that the acts were wrong, i.e., he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the acts, as perceived by reasonable people, were wrong, satisfying s 28(1)(b) of the Act. It therefore unnecessary to deal with s 28(1)(a). I note that the expert evidence was equivocal as to whether or not the accused knew the nature and quality of the act.
So far as cognitive impairment is concerned, whilst the evidence establishes that the accused likely has borderline intellectual functioning, in my opinion, absent any neurological or neuropsychological evidence (current or historical), the most that can be said is that Mr Woodham's schizophrenia has likely impaired his cognitive function. I do not, and cannot find, on the evidence, that Mr Woodham had a cognitive impairment satisfying s 5 of the Act, or that a cognitive impairment had the effect that he did not know that the offending was wrong pursuant to s 28(1)(b) of the Act.
I observe that for the purpose of s 31(a) of the Act, the accused and the prosecutor agree that the evidence in the proceedings establishes a defence of mental health impairment. The defendant is represented by an Australian legal practitioner which satisfies s 31(b) of the Act. After carefully considering the evidence of Dr Martin and Dr Eagle, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defence of mental health impairment is established: s 31(c) of the Act.
Accordingly, on 6 November 2023, I entered a special verdict of act proven but that Mr Woodham was not criminally responsible pursuant to s 31 of the Act. The verdict entered on the indictment dated 22 July 2022 is "Act proven but not criminally responsible".

[23]

Following the Entry of the Special Verdict

After I entered the special verdict, I received Exhibit 3 into evidence. That exhibit contains Mr Woodham's criminal history and the Statement of Agreed Facts and the Crown Sentence Summary with respect to offending which occurred in 2018.
Whilst Mr Woodham's criminal history formed part of Exhibit 3, I note that he did not stand to be sentenced by the Court. As Johnson J observed in R v Siemek (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293 (Siemek (No 2)) at [10]:- "The Court has been provided with the criminal history of Mr Siemek. It is important to emphasise that Mr Siemek is not being sentenced or punished by the Court. Section 33 of the MHCIFP Act is directed to the protection of persons in the community, together with the welfare of the person who has committed the act which gives rise to the special verdict: Attorney General of NSW v X (2013) 235 A Crim R 17; [2013] NSWSC 1392 at [87] - [92]."
Mr Woodham's criminal history was said to be relevant in two respects. The first was for the purpose of supporting an order pursuant to section 33(1)(b) of the Act that Mr Woodham be detained in a place and a manner that the Court thinks fit until released by due process of law. No other order was cavilled for in this case. The criminal history was also relevant in demonstrating that the decline in Mr Woodham's mental health over the last decade mirrors his increasing involvement with the criminal justice system and the concomitant escalation in the type of offending for which he has been charged. I observe that the criminal history was tendered by consent, but it was relevant only for the limited purposes referred to above.
The victim impact statements of the deceased's cousin Ian Usher and her children Amanda Hamilton and Travis Hamilton were received into evidence as Exhibit 4 pursuant to s 30L of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, which relevantly provides that a court may accept a victim impact statement after the entry of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible under the Act. The court acknowledges receipt of the victim impact statements.
The victim impact statements disclose that Ms Denise Brameld was a much loved mother, grandmother, cousin and friend. Photographs of Ms Brameld with her children and grandchildren were appended to two of the statements. Those photographs vividly illustrate that Ms Brameld was a vibrant presence in the life of her family. The community mourns the senseless loss of one of its members. On behalf of the community, the court expresses its sympathy to Amanda Hamilton, Travis Hamilton, Ian Usher and their extended family.
As I pointed out in R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931, paraphrasing Johnson J in Siemek (No 2), it is important that the community appreciates the effect of the verdict which has been returned and the orders and directions made by the Court. Mr Woodham will remain in custody and be held as a forensic patient under the supervision of the MHRT. He may be released only if the MHRT 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 MHRT as soon as practicable and will be subject to review at six monthly intervals: s 78 of the Act. If Mr Woodham 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 MHRT may order that he be apprehended and further detained: s 109 of the Act.