R v Woof

[2024] NSWDC 484

District Court of NSW|2024-10-15

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

District Court of NSW

Decision date

2024-10-15

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (37 paragraphs)

[1]

Background

Mr Matthew Woof, the Accused, is charged on indictment with the charge of cultivating a large number of prohibited plants, namely, 1,564 cannabis plants, an amount which is not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited plant, contrary to s 23(2)(a) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) ('the DMT Act').
The alleged offence was said to have been committed on 11 October 2021 at Northmead.
The case is conducted as a 'special hearing' under the provisions of Division 3 of Part 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ('the Act'). On 26 June 2023, Buscombe DCJ found that the Accused was not fit but may become fit within 12 months and referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. On 22 May 2024 the Tribunal found that Mr Woof remained unfit and would not become fit to be tried within 12 months of Buscombe DCJ's finding made on 26 June 2023.
The nature and conduct of a special hearing must conform to the requirements of s 56 of the Act. Generally, the special hearing is to be conducted as nearly as possible as if it were a trial of a criminal proceeding (s 56(1)). By reason of s 56(9), and in the absence of an election, the question whether the Accused committed the offences for which he is charged is to be determined by Judge alone, and not by jury.
By reason of s 56(5), the Accused is taken to have pleaded 'not guilty' to the offences with which he is charged.
In this hearing, the Accused represented himself. This is unique for special hearings, where the default position is that an accused must be represented (s 56(3)) but the Accused had represented himself in the lead up to the hearing, and the Crown was neutral on the matter. It was in those circumstances that the Court made an order under s 56(3) enabling him to represent himself.

[2]

[4]

Nature and consequences of a special hearing

The Accused's unfitness for a normal trial may or may not be apparent as the trial proceeds. That is because unfitness for trial may arise for any one or more of several reasons. He may not understand the nature of the charges against him or be able to decide whether he has a defence to them. He may not be able to make a rational decision about whether he is guilty or not guilty, or how to plead to the charge. He may not be able to understand, generally, the nature of the criminal proceedings and what their course and outcome may mean to him. The unfitness may be an unfitness to give his lawyers instructions about what his defence is or how the prosecution evidence is wrong, or should be questioned, or it may be an inability to apply himself to the proceedings in an informed or constructive way. Whether or not any one of these matters is apparent to me, I must accept that the Accused is unfit to be tried in a normal way because the law insists an accused have the mental capacity to do all of these things.
The conduct of a special hearing could be different in one or more of the ways to which I have referred, that is, in the way in which the Accused is able or unable to participate or contribute to his defence. In every criminal trial an accused may or may not choose to give evidence. That remains so in a special hearing such as this, but an unfit person may not be capable of making a reasoned decision about that, or indeed other matters concerning the hearing. At a special hearing the Accused is taken to have pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, unlike in a normal trial when they may enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty. The law is intended to ensure a special hearing does not prejudice the Accused any more than his unfitness already may do. He may raise, or have raised on his behalf, whatever defences a fit person could raise in a normal trial. He may, or may not, give evidence.
The purpose of a special hearing is to see that justice is done, as best it can be in the circumstances, to the Accused and the prosecution. The Accused is put on trial so that the case against him can be determined. The prosecution representing the community has an interest also in seeing that justice be done. A special hearing gives the Accused an opportunity of being found not guilty, in which case the charges cease to hang over his head, and if he requires further treatment, it may be given to him outside the criminal justice system.
I will have to reach my verdicts based on the limited evidence available. There are various ways evidence at a hearing of this nature may be limited. For example, the Accused may be unable to give or call evidence, or unable to give adequate instructions to his lawyers about which witnesses might be called to assist his case, or, as to matters on which cross-examination could be based.
The verdicts I may give in this case are "not guilty", "special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible" or "the Accused committed the offence/s based on the limited evidence available".
There are further directions I will later give myself in these reasons regarding the 'defence' of mental health impairment.

[17]

The Police 'walkthrough' of the Accused's premises

At about 7:15pm on the same date, 11 October 2021, and after a crime scene warrant had been granted by the Local Court, police officers attended the Accused's Northmead premises to execute the warrant. A video recording of the walkthrough the Accused's premises was Exhibit C (the transcript of what was said being Tab 3 to Exhibit A). Only the voices of SC Costa, the Officer in Charge ('OIC'), and PCSC Garcia were heard. During the search, 11 photographs were taken of items discovered (Exhibit A, tab 3).
What police found when they arrived was a large boulder with a pile of damp cannabis, and $1,000 cash on top of it, amongst a number of other things. Amongst the photographs that were taken, one prominent photograph was that of a rock boulder, surrounded by other rocks in the front driveway to the premises (page 8). The Accused later confirmed that surrounding the rocks was cannabis seed scattered, in a pile, on the driveway.
A list of all the items of property seized during the search is at Tab 5 of Exhibit A. In her evidence, the OIC confirmed that items 7-12 (incl) indicated individual samples of cannabis plans which, in the aggregate, numbered 1,564 plants.
There was also handwritten signs in the backyard saying such things as, "Stoned", and "Rock wellness centre and cannabis sanctuary". There were also a number of seedlings in the backyard. In a laundry at the rear of the house, police found a drying oven with green vegetable debris in the bottom of it. Inside the house, police located on a shelf in the lounge room books titled "A Field Guide to Marijuana" and "Guide to Fermentation". On the coffee table in the lounge room were two dark coloured resealable bags containing 39.4 grams of cannabis leaf, and in one of the kitchen cupboards, police found a clear resealable bag containing 6.9 grams of cannabis leaf.
For the purposes of s 43 of the DMT Act, Senior Constable Tayla Shearley certified that there were 1,564 cannabis plants, in various sizes, on the property that had been examined and analysed.
SC Shearley was unavailable to give evidence. Apparently acting upon the Accused's request, the Crown called Chantelle McCartney, a police officer with similar credentials to SC Shearley, albeit with lesser experience and who, coincidentally, attended the inspection on 11 October 2021. This was for the purpose of enabling the Accused to cross-examine that officer in lieu of SC Shearley. However, at the hearing, and apparently contrary to an earlier indication, the Accused chose not to cross-examine the officer; saying at that time that "we've already established the fact that it is cannabis, and to present another witness to basically explain the same thing seems superfluous at this point" (T 31.32).

[18]

The ERISP (Exhibit E)

On 22 October 2021, the Accused agreed to be interviewed by two police officers, the OIC and SC Tokatlian. This was after being read his rights by the custody manager at Parramatta Police station and he was cautioned. A transcript of that interview is located (Tab 9) within Exhibit A. Towards the end of the transcript there are multiple colour photographs which had been drawn to the Accused's attention during the interview. The video recording of the interview is Exhibit D.
The Accused pertinently stated that: 1. He had been renting 1 Northmead Avenue, Northmead for about 18 months; 2. he had been an artist for 25 years and, asked what he did for work, described himself as a sculptor, and artist; 3. he had worked in the ambulance service for four years, (1989 - 1993); 4. he was living alone at the property; his daughter had previously lived with him, but she moved out quite some time before; 5. he turned his place into a 'sanctuary', for people, animals and plants, over 12 months (before the interview); 6. his 'sculptural ensemble' (which he had worked upon over the preceding 16 years), which he referred to when ringing the 000 line, represented a "bomb", a word indicating a climatic end to a project; 7. the cannabis plants growing in the yard were part of an ensemble of an entire work, but there other plants, vegetables and flowers; 8. the police 'fixation' on the cannabis isolated the cannabis, when it was just a component of his 'ensemble'; 9. cannabis was created as part of nature; 10. he wanted to celebrate nature in all its forms without judgment and without trying to divide things between right and wrong; 11. he had sown the entire yard with bird seed, all sorts of seeds, and that had included cannabis seeds in it as part of the bird's diet; 12. he had watered and fertilised everything within the property; 13. the cannabis has been grown primarily for the bird seed, but it was also pretty to look at; and 14. he threw cannabis seed to possums and rats; as well as eating it himself.
When police confirmed they had seized all of the cannabis plants, the Accused asked, "did you get every single one?". The police informed him they had seized "around the 1,600 mark", and the Accused replied, "I thought there would've been more. Like, all those little ones and stuff". He also accepted that they were in the process of seeding.
An important exchange in the ERISP was as follows: "Q102: OK. Do you understand that cannabis is illegal at the moment? At present? A: I understand that it is a plant that causes you a lot of problems, and it has got nothing to do with me. Q103: Yeah. A: I, I want to celebrate nature in, in it's (sic), all of it's (sic) forms, without judgment and without, without trying, as we do as humans, to constantly divide things, to say, This is right, that is wrong. This is right, that is wrong." … A: It's a plant. That's got nothing to do with us. We gave up our right to, to dis (sic), to determine what was OK and what wasn't when we decided to turn our back on nature. Q107: So what we're … just trying to explain. So, here in New South Wales and Australia --- A: Yeah. Q108: Um, it's an offence, OK? A: OK Q109: [17:32] To cultivate, knowingly take part in the cultivation --- A: Yep. Q110: Um, to possess or to supply a prohibited plant, OK? A: OK. Q111: And cana, cannabis falls under that criteria. A: Yeah. Q112: OK, and that's what we're saying, and it's --- A: Yeah, I understand that. Look, I, I totally understand your point of view as well. Q113: Yeah. A: Um, but I'm just trying to say that it's something that we don't have any control over. I know you want to control it, but you don't. Q114: Yeah. A: OK? Neither do I. It's just a plant, and it should not be deified in the way that it has been, and it should not be demonized in the way that it has been as well. It's just a plant."
Another important exchange occurred later in the interview. The police alluded to the Accused's past experience with the ambulance, and dealings with prohibited drugs, prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals: "Q619: So obviously you would have had some sort of knowledge. A: Yep. Q620: OK. Would it be fair to say that, the, the flowers that you were growing --- A: Yep. Q621 … --- you had some sort of knowledge that was prohibited. Would that be fair to say, again --- A: Look --- Q622: --- It's, it's a simple --- A: I can't look at it from that point of view, you know. Q623: It's --- A: I can't. Q624: I, I get the point of view you're --- A: Yep. Q625: --- coming from, it's part of nature. A: Exactly, which I think --- Q626: And we're demonising it, which I completely understand your point of view. A: Yep. Q627: But we're fixated on that point of view --- A: I know, because --- Q628: --- and that's what we --- A: --- you view it as something that's naughty, you know. Q629 Exactly right. A: And it's not. Q630: Exactly right. A: You know, it's not, it's, the compounds that are within that plant are life saving."
Later (at A 636), the Accused said that it (a reference to the qualities of cannabis) had 'sound medical backing to know that this is a substance, it is a preparation, it is a compound that can bring relief to enormous amounts of people, which the Government grows." The Accused was critical of Government for making it available to people; for being hypocritical and divisive, between the "haves and the have nots". What divided both groups was that one had a license (A 640-644). He also contrasted medications (which carried side effects) with the cannabis plant which eliminated sickness and provided sufferers with freely available relief occurring in nature.

[20]

The Accused's access to Dr Dayalan's report

Before turning to the content of that opinion, I note that there was a brief issue in the hearing as to whether Dr Dayalan's report should be released to the Accused (T 44-50). That was plainly the Court's preference, however, Mr Bashir El Kheir (who authored the letter of instruction to Dr Dayalan), a solicitor of the ODPP, gave an account of Dr Dayalan's opinion, which was expressed to Mr El Kheir through an email on 11 October 2024, that the Accused was likely to get very frustrated and anxious if he did not access to it whilst defending himself. Thus, although the psychiatrist anticipated that allowing the Accused access to the report could give rise to his misinterpreting it and thereby cause the Accused stress and resentment towards him, Dr Dayalan believed, on balance, that he should have access to it (absent alternative options, such as a health care provider explaining its content to him).
The Accused himself, having heard that evidence (and without contesting the correctness of that opinion) elected to have access to the report. The hearing was adjourned to enable him to read the report. When given the opportunity, the Accused said he did not wish to have Dr Dayalan made available for cross-examination on the report.
Dr Dayalan's report was thorough and canvassed a range of different issues. Materially, it featured the Accused's account of the alleged offence (paragraphs 15 - 21). Excerpts from that account were as follows: "15. As noted earlier, Mr Woof had not been on any psychiatric medication since 2006 until his arrest for the current charges. When asked about use of illicit drugs, Mr Woof remarked that as part of the rituals he consumed cactus plants. He added that the plant contained mescaline (hallucinogen). He claimed that consumption of cactus allowed him to communicate with spirits and "sequester evil energy from the area and people". After sequestering the evil energy, he had to store the energy in sculptures/stone objects. The cultivated cannabis plants acted "as a medium between myself and the stone". He explained that the cannabis plant transformed the energy into a form that can be stored in the stone object. The stone apparently served "as a battery" and when transported to different areas, "released healing energy". He emphasised that all his endeavours were to heal the world. 16. When asked if he had consumed cannabis, Mr Woof reported to have blended the cannabis leaves into a "juice/smoothie" and drank it "to bring about homeostasis in the body and cleanse the soul". He said that the cannabis plants are known as "benefactors or teaching plants". He claimed that the effect of drinking cannabis leaves was very different to the effect of smoking cannabis. He denied ever having sold the cannabis plant. 17. Mr Woof continued to talk about "shamanistic practices" and was quite difficult to follow. When asked how he gathered all this information, he declared that his knowledge was "intuitive and cannot be read". 18. Mr Woof repeated that he had a project to complete and from the interview, it was deduced that his project involved sequestering evil energy and storing it in stone objects using cannabis as a medium for the transfer of the energy. He was asked if he received any communication in regard to his project. He described that the communication "not audible but a thought downloader". He remarked that the communication with spirits was "a feeling". He continued "we are trying to heal the world of these evil spirits". … 21. When asked why he had called the police, Mr Woof said "The project was complete and it is the practice that we need to refer to the relevant authorities to clean up once it was complete". He explained that he would not want the public to gain access to the project as it was "highly volatile". He remarked that he was "too close to the project" to destroy it himself."
Dr Dayalan also referred to earlier psychiatric diagnoses, which he summarised as being "characterised by delusional beliefs and thought disorder". He had diagnosed the Accused with schizophrenia as per the criteria in the DSM Version 5; as well as a cannabis use disorder apparently in remission.
With the assistance of a report of how the police regarded him at the point of his arrest, Dr Dayalan inferred that the Accused had presented with delusional beliefs and thought disorder on that day. With reference also to a letter written by a psychiatrist who saw the Accused on the date of his arrest, ambulance records and a mental health assessment form, Dr Dayalan also noted that the Accused was assessed as being acutely psychotic; symptoms which were consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Dr Dayalan concluded that around the time of the offences, the Accused suffered from a mental health impairment (paragraph 47).
Dr Dayalan went on to reason that the Accused had been suffering from several delusional beliefs and impaired reasoning around the time. He noted his own assessment of the Accused in which the Accused had reported to him that he was a member of an 'Order' that required him to 'sequester evil energy and store it in stone objects, using cannabis plant as a medium for the transfer of energy'. Based on what the Accused told him, Dr Dayalan noted that the Accused continued to believe that he had not done anything wrong as he had continued to carry out his 'responsibilities' from being a member of the said Order. Dr Dayalan found a direct connection between the Accused's offending actions and his delusional beliefs (paragraph 48).
That being so, Dr Dayalan's opinion (paragraph 49) was that: "Mr Woof's ability to reason the moral wrongfulness of his actions with a moderate degree of sense was impaired by the delusional beliefs associated with his mental health impairment. On a balance of probabilities, Mr Woof could avail the defence of mental health impairment".
I note for completeness that before she closed the Crown case, Ms Crown offered to the Accused the opportunity to call further witnesses if he sought them, but the Accused declined that offer (T 37.31).

[23]

Crown submissions

Ms Crown submitted that the Court should find that each of the essential elements of the offence were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
There was no dispute that the Accused was engaged in the act of cultivating cannabis plants. He was the occupier of the Northmead premises and the photographs obtained from the real estate agent indicated a clear comparison between the condition of the premises a year before his arrest (with no apparent cannabis plants) with the condition of the premises at the time of the walkthrough through the premises (with an abundance of cannabis plants and accoutrements of cultivation of plants). He told the interviewing police in his ERISP that he had been cultivating the plants for a year. He freely accepted that the plants were cannabis plants. He admitted providing cannabis seeds to feed birds, rats, possums and even himself. He told police that he was in the process of seeding.
As to the quantity, it was unnecessary for the Crown to put a precise number on the cannabis plants. But the Crown relied upon the certificate of analysis by SC Shearley (Exhibit A, tab 4) as "prima facie evidence of the identity of the plant or substance analysed, the quantity or mass of the plant or substance analysed and of the result of the analysis". (The certificate, on its face, indicated that SC Shearley was an 'appointed person' under s 43(5) of the DMT Act).
There is no dispute that the number of 1,654 plants exceeded the large commercial quantity for that prohibited plant.
Further, additional reinforcement to this evidence was given by the circumstance that there was no challenge to SC Shearley's evidence; nor, for that matter, the evidence of Plain Clothes Constable McCartney, who currently is an appointed person under the DMT Act; and qualified to opine on the identification of cannabis plants. As indicated, the Crown organised for her attendance in lieu of SC Shearley, for the primary purpose of enabling the Accused to challenge the Crown evidence identifying the type and quantity of prohibited plant. The Accused did not challenge the evidence.
As to the last of the elements for the offence, and in addition to the evidence to support the earlier elements of the offence, the Crown emphasised the photographic evidence regarding the abundance of cannabis plant on the premises, viewed in the context of what the premises had looked like a year before his arrest. Further whatever lack of sophistication there may have been in the Accused's operation, it was clear that the Accused was bent on cultivation. He was, so it was insinuated, a fervent believer in the qualities and uses of cannabis seed; in the former sense, verging on spiritual belief about the benefits of cannabis; certainly in comparison with ordinary medications which the Accused plainly thought gave rise to corruption. In all of this, if the Accused did not believe or know that he had cultivated plants to exceed a large commercial quantity, it should be found that he knew that there was a real chance that they did.
Having submitted that the essential elements of the charge were proven, Ms Crown then addressed the potential defence of mental impairment.
After referring to Dr Dayalan's opinion, Ms Crown submitted that the Accused knew of the nature and quality of his act; even if he showed a lack of insight.
Ms Crown did not argue against a finding that the defence of mental health impairment being open.

[25]

Defence of mental health impairment

In the event that I find that the Crown has established the first and second essential elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt, that the Accused committed the physical act that constitutes the offence, namely cultivating an amount of prohibited plants (cannabis plants) not less than the large commercial quantity, I must then decide whether it has been established that a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" should be returned. Whether or not the mental element of the offence that I have described, namely an intention to cultivate a number of prohibited (cannabis) plants in excess of a large commercial quantity for that particular plan has been proved is irrelevant for the moment. The return of the special verdict does not depend upon that mental element having been proven.
If I am satisfied the Accused committed the act of cultivating cannabis plants in excess of the large commercial quantity the question then is did he have a mental health impairment which had the effect that he 1. did not know the nature and quality of the act, or 2. did not know that the act was wrong [3] .
If either effect has been proved, I would return the "special verdict" which is "act proven but not criminally responsible".
There are some important matters concerning this 'impairment' issue which need to be acknowledged.
First, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, the law presumes that an accused did not have a mental health impairment that had one of the effects upon him that I have mentioned [4] .
Second, I am concerned with the mental health of the Accused at the time of committing the act that constitutes the offence. There is evidence of the state of his mental health before and after but it is only relevant to the extent to which it assists in a determination of what the Accused's mental health condition was at the time of committing that act.
The third matter is that proof of this impairment issue is necessary only to the standard of the balance of probabilities [5] . That stands in contrast to the requirement that the Crown prove the guilt of the Accused to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
I will now refer to the elements of the impairment issue itself. As I have said, it involves two matters: whether the Accused had a mental health impairment at the time of carrying out the act constituting the offence and if so, whether this impairment had a certain effect upon the Accused.

[30]

Explanation of the effect of the special verdict

By reason of s 29 of the Act, I am obliged to indicate what happens if I return the special verdict.
If my verdict is "not guilty", the Accused walks from the court a free person and the criminal process comes to an end. If my verdict is "guilty", the court will determine the appropriate penalty to impose upon the Accused.
However, if I return the special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible", neither of those things happens. Instead, the law provides for a process of review, to determine whether the Accused poses a risk to him or to others, and whether he should be released into the community or detained and treated.
If I am satisfied that the safety of the Accused and members of the community will not be seriously endangered by the Accused's release into the community, he can be released, either unconditionally, or with conditions, such as a requirement that the Accused accept medical treatment, or live at a particular place. If the court concludes that it is not appropriate to release the Accused into the community at present, the court can order his detention until it is safe to release him. Detention can be in a prison, or a secure hospital or some similar facility, and it would continue until the Mental Health Review Tribunal decided that the Accused could be released.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal is a special body with expertise in this area. It has Members rather than judges, but the Members of the Tribunal are all people with special qualifications and expertise. They include judges or senior lawyers, but also medical and other professionals, such as psychologists and psychiatrists.
The Tribunal will review the Accused's situation regularly and will not order the release of the Accused until it is satisfied the safety of the Accused or any member of the public would not be seriously endangered. Until that time, the Accused would be held in a secure place, where medical treatment can be provided.
Indicating what will happen if the result is a special verdict that the Accused is not criminally responsible should not lead me to decide the case based upon what I think is the best outcome for the Accused or the community. I must return a verdict based only upon the evidence placed before me.

[35]

Effect of the mental health impairment

As to the second question, the position was not quite so clear. Viewing the Accused's presentation and content of his answers to questions raised of him in his ERISP in isolation, I formed the view that the Accused did understand how police (and others) might view his conduct as wrongful; but because of his alternative 'perspective' - which appeared to that he had some kind of artistic licence to use cannabis for (in his mind) the innocent purpose of creating a sculpture for the benefit of himself and others - he did not see it as wrongful itself. In other words, the content of his ERISP indicated that he made a moral choice to engage in actions that he appreciated that others might view differently, as being wrongful.
However, as the Crown correctly emphasised, care needs to be exercised not to give disproportionate weight to the evidence that the Accused gave in the ERISP interview as that interview occurred 11 days after the offending, by which period he had been treated and medicated, and was lucid.
The issue, however, is not wrongfulness viewed in retrospect, but wrongfulness at the time of the offending. More reliable indicia of his state of mind as to the 'wrongfulness' of his actions was the 000 call, the records from the NSW ambulance service (both being 11 October 2021), Mental Health Assessment Form on 13 October 2021, and his conduct in creating the ensemble or sculpture presented to the police on 11 October 2021 and inferences that arise from the layout and extent to which cannabis plants were otherwise displayed around his property.
Reading Dr Dayalan's opinion (especially at paragraphs 48-49) and taking into account the matters referred to in paragraph 119 of his report, at the time of the acts constituting the offending, I find, on the probabilities, that the Accused did not reason, with a moderate degree of sense and composure, about whether his series of acts was wrong. I find that he was deluded in his thinking that he had 'created' a new world through the ensemble structure he had created featuring a boulder and using cannabis as a component part of it. This, he equated, to a 'bomb'. The completion of the bomb and the layout and acts of cultivation of the cannabis plants around his home was no recent event. With reference to what Dr Dayalan stated (at paragraph 15 and following), I find that the Accused had built up, at least over a year, his sculpture to 'sequester evil energy from the area and people' and that '(a)fter sequestering the evil energy, he had to store the energy in sculptures/stone objects'. His motive was to heal the worlds from evil spirits. It was at the date of his alleged offending that he had completed his project involving the sequestration of evil energy and storing it in stone objects with the cannabis being used as the medium for the transfer of the energy.
Having completed his project on 11 October 2021, he was giddy with excitement; so much so that he was impelled to ring the 000 line to give the 000 operator the 'heads up' that a bomb was "ready to go off". He could not conceive what reasonable people would take for granted, that mention of the expression 'a bomb .. likely to go off' to a 000 operator was apt to inspire panic and alarm at the other end of the line and, further, that speaking to a 000 operator was manifestly not the occasion to engage in artistic metaphor.
It was not just the content of the words spoken. The walkthrough and photographs depicted on the date of the offending, featuring the nourishing of cannabis plants, signage at different places in the backyard of the residence amply demonstrated Dr Dayalan's conclusion of the Accused having grandiose delusions.
I am satisfied that the presumption in s 28(3) is rebutted. At the time he carrying out the series of acts, in cultivation of what was in excess of a large commercial quantity, the Accused did not know that they wrong. The defence in s 28(1)(b) is established on the probabilities.
This conclusion obviates any requirement for me to consider whether the Crown would have established the third essential element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

R v Woof

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (37 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (2)