//
[2025] NSWSC 1370
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-11-21
Sweeney J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yilin Liu [2025] NSWSC 1370
Hearing dates: 06 November 2025
Date of orders: 21 November 2025
Decision date: 21 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Sweeney J
Decision: 1. Mr Liu’s application for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of murdering Chong Kai Wong is refused.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – application for leave to withdraw a guilty plea – offence of murder – whether there is a triable issue as to whether the accused had a mental illness at the time of the admitted acts causing the death of the deceased – whether the interests of justice require that the applicant be granted leave to withdraw his guilty plea in accordance with White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241 – application refused
Legislation Cited: Nil
Cases Cited: White v R (2022) 110 NSWLR 163; [2022] NSWCCA 241
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Yilin Liu (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
C McGorey (Applicant)
G J Tabuteau (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ting Legal Criminal Defence Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/78295
Publication restriction: N/A
Yilin Liu seeks leave to withdraw the plea of guilty he entered to the murder of Chong Kai Wong, which occurred between 25 December 2020 and 1 January 2021. Mr Liu seeks to have a trial in which he would rely on defences based on a mental illness he says he was suffering at the time of the killing of Mr Wong.
The Crown opposes Mr Liu being granted leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. Mr Liu bears the onus of persuading the Court to permit the withdrawal of his plea.
Mr Liu’s position is that there is a triable issue as to whether he had a mental illness at the time of his admitted acts causing Mr Wong’s death and that that issue, and conflicting evidence about his mental health, should be determined by a jury in a trial.
The Crown’s position is that the issue for determination in these proceedings, in accordance with the decision of White v R (2022) 110 NSWLR 163; [2022] NSWCCA 241 (“White”), is the integrity of Mr Liu’s plea of guilty.
When this matter first came before the Court on 8 October 2025 I was asked to determine, and did determine, whether the Court had jurisdiction to consider Mr Liu’s application, in circumstances where Wilson J had recorded a conviction, although Mr Liu had not been sentenced, for the offence of murder. I determined that the Court did have jurisdiction to consider the application.
[65] “The interests of justice test is broader and may focus on matters going beyond the integrity of the plea, although that will very often be the focal point of the inquiry. A non-exhaustive list of factors affecting the interests of justice will include:
• the circumstances in which the plea was given;
• the nature and formality of the plea, involving as it does the admission of all the formal elements of the offence;
• the importance of the role of trial by jury in the criminal justice system;
• the time between the entry of the plea and the application for its withdrawal;
• any prejudice to the Crown that might arise from the withdrawal of the plea;
• the complexity of the elements of the charged offence;
• whether all of the relevant facts upon which the Crown intended to rely were fully known to the accused;
• the nature and extent of legal advice received by the accused before entering the plea;
• the seriousness of the alleged offending and thus the likely consequences in terms of penalty;
• the subjective circumstances of the accused;
• any intellectual or cognitive impairment suffered by the accused, notwithstanding their fitness to plead;
• any reason to suppose that ’the accused [was] not thoroughly aware of what he [or she was] doing’;
• any extraneous factors that bore upon the making of the plea at the time it was made, including inducement by threats, fraud or other impropriety;
• whether the accused has been persuaded to enter a plea by reason of imprudent and inappropriate advice tendered by his or her legal representatives;
• any explanation that has been proffered by the accused for the application to withdraw their guilty plea;
• any consequences to victims, witnesses or third parties that might arise from the withdrawal of the plea; and
• whether, on the material before the Court, there is a real question about the accused’s guilt to the charge in respect of which the plea has been entered.
…
[70] Each case will necessarily turn on its own facts but examples of cases where the interests of justice will warrant the withdrawal of a plea of guilty include:
• the nature of the charge to which the plea has been entered is not appreciated;
• the plea is not ‘a free and voluntary confession’;
• the ‘plea [is] not really attributable to a genuine consciousness of guilt’;
• there has been a ‘mistake or other circumstances affecting the integrity of the plea as an admission of guilt’;
• the plea has been ‘induced by threats or other impropriety’ and the applicant would not otherwise have pleaded guilty;
• the plea is not unequivocal or is made in circumstances suggesting it is not a true admission of guilt; and
• ‘the person who entered the plea was not in possession of all of the facts and did not entertain a genuine consciousness of guilt’.”
The allegation is that Mr Liu and Mr Wong, the deceased, were members of a group cultivating cannabis on a farm outside of Bathurst, that on 28 December 2020, Mr Liu murdered Mr Wong by strangling him in his bedroom at the farm, and that Mr Liu and another member of the group, Mr Huang, buried Mr Wong’s body at the farm.
In the material put before me on the application I had a Statement of Agreed Facts and a Crown Case Statement. I have proceeded on the basis of the former. The materials also contained a copy of the Statement of Agreed Facts translated into Mandarin by an accredited interpreter and signed by Mr Liu, according to his affidavit in the proceedings. According to the Agreed Statement of Facts Mr Liu was directed by a person referred to as “the boss” to kill Mr Wong, about a week before he did so. The motive for the killing of Mr Wong was said to be that he was misappropriating funds related to the cultivation. The Agreed Facts say that on 28 December 2020 Mr Liu was driven from Sydney to Bathurst to the farm. He went into Mr Wong’s bedroom where Mr Wong was having a nap. Mr Wong woke up. Mr Liu sat behind him and choked him around his neck until he lost consciousness and died. Mr Liu then called out to Mr Huang, who came into the bedroom to find Mr Wong dead. Mr Liu and Mr Huang then used a tractor to transport Mr Wong’s body away from the house to a creek on the property, where Mr Huang used an excavator to dig a hole and they buried Mr Wong’s body.
After the killing Mr Liu is said to have made admissions to people involved in the cultivation that he had gotten rid of the deceased by strangling him in a chokehold and telling other cultivation workers where Mr Wong’s body had been buried. He admitted to one person he had murdered Mr Wong. In some recorded conversations Mr Liu said that Mr Huang had been thorough and careful in digging a deep hole and that wild grass would have grown over where the digging was done because of the time which had passed. He said that even if the place was found and the person was found “Do they have any evidence that we did it?”. He said in another conversation that he did not use any weapon and the cause of death would not be able to be determined because of the decomposition of the deceased’s skin.
When Mr Wong’s body was recovered, after Mr Huang and another person had identified the burial site, he was found to have fractured bones in his throat (on the Crown case consistent with his being strangled).
On 29 March 2022 Mr Liu was arrested and placed into custody.
He pleaded guilty to the charge of murder in the Local Court at Bathurst on 28 August 2024. He was assisted by an interpreter that day.
He appeared in the Supreme Court on 6 September 2024. He was represented by Mr M King of counsel and assisted by an interpreter. He told Wilson J that he maintained his plea of guilty to the murder charge.
In January 2025 Mr Liu’s new solicitor applied to vacate his sentence hearing fixed for 7 February 2025.
Mr Liu’s solicitor advised the Crown on 1 May 2025 of his intention to apply for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty. His notice of motion for that application is dated 6 August 2025 and is supported by an affidavit of Mr Liu affirmed on 5 August 2025. When the matter came on for hearing on 8 October 2025 an amended notice of motion was filed.
In his affidavit Mr Liu said that he signed the facts admitted for sentencing, which included a copy translated into Mandarin.
There was an affidavit from Mr Michael King, Deputy Senior Public Defender, who represented Mr Liu from August 2022 until Mr Liu engaged his present solicitor in late 2024. Mr King’s evidence was not challenged. He deposed to having had a number of conferences with his instructing solicitor, Mr Nelson, and Mr Liu, with an interpreter. That was not disputed by Mr Liu. Mr King said that he advised Mr Liu, both in writing and in person, about the strength of the Crown case against him, including apparent admissions in recorded conversations. He said that Mr Liu instructed him to negotiate charges with the Crown, and he resisted a “criminal gang charge”, disputing that he was the leader or organiser of the cultivation group. He said Mr Liu also raised the prospect of his providing assistance to the police to assist him to secure a reduced sentence and authorised Mr King to discuss that matter with the Crown Prosecutor. Mr King said that at a conference with Mr Liu, with an interpreter, on 28 September 2023 Mr Liu said words to the effect “I see that there is plenty of evidence that I committed the murder”.
Relevant to Mr Liu’s application Mr King deposed that the first time Mr Liu raised with him his mental health and informed him that he suffered from a mental illness was during the conference on 28 September 2023. He said Mr Liu raised how his mental condition could be taken into account, and whether it would lead to a reduction in sentence. Mr King said that he was very surprised when Mr Liu told him that he suffered from “bipolar” and “schizophrenia”, because he had not previously suggested any such problem, nor had anything in his dealings with Mr Liu caused him to have concerns about his mental health or think he may have suffered from a mental illness. Mr King acknowledged that he is not an expert in such, although he has been representing people charged with criminal offences since 2010.
Mr King said that he then explained to Mr Liu how the law treats mental illness and explained the defence of mental health impairment, in terms which included:
“If for example… you knew that you were killing Jackie (Mr Wong) but were thinking at the time, for example, that he was a demon and had to be killed…”.
He said Mr Liu then said to him words to the effect:
“Yes that is what happened. Jackie was a demon and I had to kill him or he was going to kill me.”
Mr King said he then became aware that Mr Liu was being housed in the Mental Health Screening Unit (MHSU) at Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre (MRRC). Mr King said that Mr Nelson then obtained Mr Liu’s Justice Health records and arrangements were made for Mr Liu to be assessed by Dr Furst, psychiatrist.
Mr King said he advised Mr Liu about the forensic health system, and he said Mr Liu told him that he did not want to go to hospital and expressed a fear that if he did so doctors would “turn [him] into a vegetable.” After Dr Furst’s report was obtained Mr King, Mr Nelson and the interpreter advised Mr Liu about the effect of Dr Furst’s report. Mr King said that Mr Liu then signed instructions, which had been translated into Mandarin.
The issues in relation to Mr Liu’s being mentally ill at the time he killed Mr Wong are as follows. Mr Liu says that he was diagnosed with a mental illness when he was a teenager in China, that he has been diagnosed with and treated for mental illness while in custody since 2022, and that he has experienced hearing voices and other symptoms between the time he arrived in Australia in 2017 and until he went into custody in March 2022, that is continuously. He relies on a report from Dr Olav Nielssen, psychiatrist.
The Crown’s position is that Mr Liu was not mentally ill at the time of the killing of Mr Wong. The Crown relies on a report and oral evidence in the hearing of this application by Dr Richard Furst, psychiatrist, and two reports by Dr Adam Martin, psychiatrist. The Crown also relies on what it submits were inconsistent accounts by Mr Liu to doctors who assessed him in custody.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that questions of fact, including such as whether Mr Liu had been honest to psychiatrists about his symptoms, are matters for determination by the trier of fact in the trial. The Crown’s position was that the focus of the enquiry in this application is the integrity of the plea of guilty.
I accept that if there was a trial the issues of fact about Mr Liu’s symptoms and conflicting expert opinions would be matters for the tribunal of fact. However, I am of the view that in considering and determining Mr Liu’s application to withdraw his plea of guilty, I am entitled to have regard to the experts’ opinions, including the basis of their opinions.
Mr Liu was born on 11 March 2000. He came to Australia in October 2017. He said in his affidavit that since 2015 he has always had voices in his head; there were times when he got better, but the symptoms are always there. He said when he was about 16 his mother took him to see two doctors or psychiatrists in different hospitals in China. He told the doctors about his symptoms. He said a doctor recommended he takes some medication but his mother refused to permit that, fearing that for him to be recorded as taking medication would adversely affect his future and the way he would be regarded in China.
Mr Liu said after he came to Australia in 2017, and until his arrest in 2022 he did not see any doctor for mental health treatment but he experienced hearing voices and other symptoms, such as feeling scared that people were trying to harm him. He said he did not see a doctor because he was scared he would be forcefully hospitalised, and the first time he began getting treatment for his mental health was in prison after he was arrested in 2022.
He described his symptoms while in custody, including hallucinating and hearing voices. He described how he was medicated from time to time and sometimes took the medication and sometimes did not. He described being moved to the MHSU in about September 2023, where he has been housed since. He said he understands the doctors think he has schizophrenia. He said he did not believe he was suffering from a mental condition until he went to the MHSU. He said after he went to the MHSU he accepted the doctor’s explanation that he has a mental illness. He said it was only after he went to the MHSU that he told his lawyers he was receiving treatment for his mental health. He said he had been afraid to tell his lawyers that he had the illness because he thought the court might sentence him to become “a vegetable”. He said he told his lawyers that his state of mind at the time of Mr Wong’s death was that he believed Jackie [Mr Wong] was a demon and that he had put a curse on Mr Liu and Mr Liu would die from the curse.
He said that he was never given a copy of Dr Furst’s report and did not read it. He accepted his lawyer’s advice that Dr Furst said there was no mental health defence available to him, and thinking that a mental health defence was not possible he told his lawyers he was willing to plead guilty to the murder charge. He said after he pleaded guilty and signed the facts he felt uneasy about that and told his lawyers that he wanted to be assessed by another psychiatrist, which did not occur until he instructed his new lawyer, Mr Ting, in November 2024 and thereafter he was interviewed by Dr Nielssen.
Annexed to Mr Liu’s affidavits were two documents which, according to him and his mother, are medical certificates provided to him when he saw doctors in China in 2016. They are two documents in Chinese characters, with English translations. The first document is dated 16 August 2016, described as a “Medical Conditions Certificate” from Shenyang Shen Yi Mental Rehabilitation Hospital. It has Mr Liu’s name and age of 16 and the diagnosis of “schizophrenia positive”. The symptoms are described and include “auditory and visual hallucinations”, “thoughts lack coherence”, “overly suspicious of everything”, and “illusion of being harmed etc”. The other document is dated 17 July 2016 and is entitled “Medical Conditions Certificate” from Shenyang City An Ning Hospital. It has Mr Liu’s name and age of 16 and preliminary diagnosis of “schizophrenia positive”. The symptoms are described as including hallucinations and delusions, described as having a “latency period of 1-5 years”. Both documents recommend hospitalisation for treatment, and the second also includes adhering to taking long term medications.
Mr Liu’s mother, Xiaoxia Guo, swore an affidavit of 2 October 2025, and was cross-examined by the Crown in the hearing on 9 October 2025.
Ms Guo said that around the age of 16 Mr Liu told her that someone kept talking to him, telling him what to do. She described taking her son to the first doctor, who told her that Mr Liu had schizophrenia and would need to be on medication for a long time. She took him to a second doctor, who also said that Mr Liu had symptoms of schizophrenia and recommended that he be hospitalised for observation.
Ms Guo said that in China mental illness is feared, discriminated against, and looked down on. She did not tell anyone or let her son receive treatment in hospital or by medication, because she feared he might be forcibly committed for life or the medications and treatments could make him “dull and lifeless”.
After conflict with Mr Liu’s father, Ms Guo bought Mr Liu to Australia in 2017. She said that after Mr Liu went into prison she told him to not let anyone know about his mental health issues because she feared the effects of medication or treatment, or his being put in a psychiatric hospital.
Ms Guo annexed to her affidavit the two medical certificates which were also annexed to Mr Liu’s affidavit. She said she left the medical certificates in China at her sister’s house when she came to Australia and in July 2024 she asked her sister to send her the medical certificates by email, which she did in July 2024.
In cross-examination Ms Guo confirmed that when she took Mr Liu to see the doctors in 2016 he was interviewed for about an hour by each doctor, and he was mostly asked just verbal questions.
Ms Guo agreed that after Mr Liu was taken into custody, after his arrest, she had a phone conversation with someone about his mental health. She said she did not want others to be aware of his mental health issue because she thought that would be harmful to him. She said that coloured her answers to the questions the nurse asked her about Mr Liu’s mental health. She agreed she told the nurse that she had never sent Mr Liu to see a psychiatrist, that she did not tell the nurse that Mr Liu started hearing things at the age of 16, but said that he started hearing things at the age of 19, because of her fear of disclosing Mr Liu’s mental illness and the possible stigmatising consequences. She said it was not a lie to tell the nurse that Mr Liu’s symptoms started at the age of 19, because that was what the nurse told her and she acknowledged it. She said she said that because she did not want to disclose that she had brought Mr Liu from overseas because he was sick and because he was already being treated by doctors in gaol for his mental illness condition. She said she did not consider it was a lie to say that Mr Liu started hearing things at the age of 19. She said that the two medical certificates of 2016 are genuine.
Mr Liu relies on two reports from Dr Olav Nielssen, psychiatrist, dated 22 February 2025 and 15 April 2025.
In his first report, Dr Nielssen stated that as well as interviewing Mr Liu on 18 February 2025, with the assistance of an interpreter, he also read the material provided including the indictment, the Agreed Facts signed by Mr Liu, a transcript of his interview with police, transcripts of covertly recorded conversations between Mr Liu and others between 18 November 2021 and 27 March 2022, records from Justice Health and a letter regarding Mr Liu’s psychiatric assessment in China, dated 17 July 2016.
The transcripts of the covertly recorded conversations were provided in the court book for the hearing of this application. They are relied on by the Crown as the source of some of the admissions in the Crown case contained in the Agreed Facts Statement. They appear to be conversations about supplying drugs, cultivating cannabis and finding sites for the cultivation of cannabis. It seems on the material before me that Mr Liu has accepted that his voice is on the recordings, but that he has said that some of what he said in those conversations about his involvement in drug business was exaggerated or not true.
In his first report Dr Nielssen set out the history he obtained from Mr Liu, which included the following:
The account of the events in the Agreed Facts he signed was mostly correct, although since he came to prison and was treated for mental illness with visual and auditory hallucinations and persecutory beliefs, he had come to realise that his suspicion of Mr Wong may have been delusional.
When asked to explain the background to the offences in his own words, Mr Liu said through the interpreter “My boss told me that person wanted to betray me… My boss told me that person wanted to kill me… My boss’s intention was that he wanted me to kill that person first before he started that action… My boss threatened me that if you don’t kill him I will kill all of you”.
Mr Liu’s communications with the boss were by telephone and were not hallucinated voices.
He said he had hallucinations but that was not the main reason he killed that person. He also said “At that time I thought he was a kind of a devil…. God told me I could win and I went to challenge him and I won”.
He confirmed that Mr Huang helped him to bury Mr Wong’s body.
He said the reason for killing Mr Wong was the belief that he was a demon who planned to kill him.
Mr Liu said that in the 15 months between Mr Wong’s death and his arrest he moved to another cannabis cultivation operation in Newcastle and continued to experience hallucinations of voices.
Mr Liu said that he was examined in hospitals in China at the ages of 13 and 15, was experiencing hallucinations of voices at the time of the second assessment and was advised to take medication, but his mother told him not to do so and he did not have any treatment. He said the hallucinations of voices had been present since the age of 15 and they became “more real” after he began using methamphetamine.
Mr Liu said he was affected by hallucinations when he first went into prison. The symptoms became less severe after he started treatment with antipsychotic medication. He said his symptoms became worse in the second half of 2024, resulting in his transfer to the MHSU, where he was prescribed higher doses of medication.
Dr Nielssen said Mr Liu did not endorse the typical symptoms of Bipolar Disorder, such as abnormally good mood, reduced need for sleep, high energy and racing thoughts, other than after using methamphetamine. He said Mr Liu’s medication at the time of preparing the report was antipsychotic medication, a mood stabiliser and an antidepressant medication.
Dr Nielssen said Mr Liu’s answers in the police interview, conducted with the assistance of an interpreter, seemed to be reasonably complete and coherent. He denied drug use and denied involvement in Mr Wong’s death. He said in the recording of the police interview Mr Liu’s responses were mostly spontaneous and appropriate to the questions put to him and there were no clear signs of active mental illness.
In his review of Mr Liu’s Justice Health records Dr Nielssen noted the following:
In the medical review conducted on 29 March 2022, on his reception to prison, by an undergraduate nursing assistant, Mr Liu did not report anything causing him concern and the nurse noted the absence of mental illness.
In an assessment dated 30 March 2022 Mr Liu denied having symptoms of psychosis; his speech was spontaneous, logical and coherent; no delusional or obsessive thinking was elicited.
There was a mental health review on 1 April 2022 after Mr Liu was observed to be sobbing. He reported the diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder in China at the age of 13 and treatment with medication for that disorder for 6 months at the age of 15. He reported visions of animals and hallucinations of voices. He was prescribed an antipsychotic medication and placed in an observation cell.
On the 2nd, 4th and 8th of April Mr Liu reported seeing a dog in his cell and a voice instructing him to self-harm.
A psychiatrist, Dr Satish Dayalan, who saw Mr Liu on 31 May 2022, concluded his auditory hallucinations were related to adverse experiences in childhood and that Mr Liu was depressed. He continued him on antipsychotic medication and prescribed an antidepressant.
In two reviews in August and November 2022 he was noted to have improved.
Mr Liu was reported to have stopped taking his medication on 28 January 2023. Dr Dayalan saw him on 21 February 2023 and concluded his symptoms were more consistent with a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. He changed Mr Liu’s antipsychotic medication, but Mr Liu refused to take that medication and Dr Dayalan returned him to the earlier antipsychotic medication.
On 18 August 2023 Mr Liu told another psychiatrist, Dr Natasha Rae, that a voice told him that his business partner was planning to kill him so he killed that man. Dr Rae noted that Mr Liu did not believe he was mentally ill. On 28 August 2023 he complained of hearing voices and seeing animals in his cell.
When interviewed by a trainee psychiatrist, Dr Alan Kennedy, Mr Liu told him that the person he killed had put a spell on him that would kill him and so he killed him first. Dr Kennedy concluded that Mr Liu was experiencing a relapse of psychosis and referred him for admission to the MHSU.
On 15 September 2023 Mr Liu told Dr Rae that he believed the deceased continued to control his thoughts.
On assessment by a Mandarin speaking nurse after transfer to the MRRC Mr Liu told the nurse he killed a demon. He told her that hallucinations began after smoking methamphetamine in 2019.
Mr Liu was admitted to the MHSU on 9 October 2023. His symptoms at the time of reception were hallucinations of voices and persecutory beliefs. He was treated with an antipsychotic medication and his symptoms improved. His diagnosis was schizophrenia.
Dr Nielssen noted the letter from Shenyang City An Ning Hospital dated 17 July 2016 and its contents.
Dr Nielssen said when he interviewed Mr Liu his answers were reasonably spontaneous and his speech was reported to be logical and coherent. He reported typical symptoms of schizophrenia-like psychosis but did not offer a delusional explanation for that experience and no other enduring delusional beliefs were elicited. He maintained attention for the duration of the interview and his concentration was assessed to be unimpaired.
Dr Nielssen diagnosed Mr Liu as having schizophrenia. He said the diagnosis was based on the symptoms described by Mr Liu and the information in the medical records, in particular the summary of the assessment conducted in China when Mr Liu was aged 15. He summarised Mr Liu’s reported hallucinations of voices, visual hallucinations and delusional beliefs.
Dr Nielssen took into account that Mr Liu was diagnosed with schizophrenia at the age of 15 after developing hallucinations of voices. He noted Mr Liu was identified as having symptoms of schizophrenia soon after his reception to prison, some 15 months after the offence, and he was prescribed antipsychotic medication, that he had a severe relapse after he stopped that medication and needed a relatively long admission to the MHSU to bring his symptoms under control.
Dr Nielssen expressed the opinion that the emergence of the syndrome of schizophrenia prior to any exposure by Mr Liu to drugs, and the persistence of symptoms after he had stopped using drugs, confirmed that his condition is a chronic form of mental illness rather than a substance induced condition.
Dr Nielssen expressed the opinion that based on the information available, he believed that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Liu’s schizophrenic illness resulted in a mental impairment at the time of killing Mr Wong. Dr Nielssen said that based on his account, Mr Liu was aware of the physical nature and quality of his act in choking Mr Wong to death, but at the time of the offence he was deprived of the ability to recognise that his actions were morally wrong, because of the effect of delusional beliefs regarding the deceased arising from hallucinated voices. Dr Nielssen said:
“I note the alternative version of the reason for Mr Liu’s action in killing Mr Wong, that he had been ordered to do so by some kind of boss. I also note the absence of objective features of chronic psychotic illness, including impairment in cognitive or social function, or any obvious communication disorder. However, the more likely explanation for such an extreme course of action without clear provocation is the effect of commanding hallucinations and persecutory beliefs, which the documents confirm had been present since the age of 15, were identified soon after reception to prison, and which were more likely to have been made worse by any use of cannabis and methamphetamine around the time of the offences.”
Dr Nielssen also expressed the opinion that Mr Liu may be able to raise the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, because he had an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence, due to an underlying persistent psychotic illness, that significantly affected his perception of events, ability to judge right from wrong and also affected his ability to exercise proper control over his actions.
In the second report dated 15 April 2025 Dr Nielssen maintained his opinion in his earlier report, after reading the report of Dr Richard Furst of 20 December 2023. He said Dr Furst was not aware of the document confirming treatment of Mr Liu for psychosis in adolescence, and interviewed Mr Liu when he was receiving treatment with an adequate dose of an effective antipsychotic medication. Dr Nielssen said that before his arrest, Mr Liu had “an antisocial lifestyle and a comparatively severe substance use disorder, both of which require a degree of organisation that is not typical of schizophrenia. He did not have acute exacerbations of symptoms while using drugs known to trigger psychosis, resulting in presentation to hospital.” However, Dr Nielssen interpreted the Justice Health records that Mr Liu had been consistent in reporting symptoms when they were present and that they had returned while he was not using drugs. Moreover, he said his not acquiring a workable command of English during the time he had spent in Australia was, in his experience, typical of schizophrenia.
“I heard the owner of the farm say to me Jackie was going to take over the control of the farm and Jackie was going to kill me. I felt strongly about that. I felt Jackie was the devil who was sent to the world to take people’s property and to harm people. When I learned about that, I contacted our boss and asked him what I should do. Boss ordered me to kill him, otherwise he would have all of us at the farm killed off… He specifically said he was worried that Jackie would kill him and the others and that the ‘boss’ told him to kill Jackie.”
Dr Furst said Mr Liu was lucid and expansive throughout the assessment, there were no indications of severe mood disturbance and no acute signs of psychosis, such as thought disorder and/or responding to internal stimuli. He said Mr Liu said “I feel like Jackie is coming back with other devils to suck out my soul.”
Dr Furst had reviewed the Crown Case Statement. He also reviewed Mr Liu’s Justice Health records. His summary of them included the following:
In a mental health screening assessment on 30 March 2022 Mr Liu denied any history of mental health problems, or any mental health symptoms. His responses to questions were coherent and relevant, his thoughts were logical, he denied having hallucinations. No delusional or obsessional thinking was evident. No psychiatric diagnosis was made and no psychiatric referrals initiated.
A mental health nurse conducted a mental health review on 1 April 2022 after Mr Liu had been sobbing in his cell. He said he was diagnosed with “Bipolar” as a 13 year old in a Chinese hospital, but was not treated with medication. He said his symptoms were worse when he was 15 years old and he was medicated for 6 months and his symptoms resolved. He said he sometimes experiences delusions and hallucinations. That day he was prescribed an antipsychotic medication.
On 2 April 2022 Mr Liu was seen by a Mandarin speaking nurse and reported auditory hallucinations of voices forcing him to self-harm and visual hallucinations of his dog in his cell.
On 4 April 2022 Mr Liu told a mental health nurse he was seeing animal bodies on the floor of his cell.
On 8 April 2022 Mr Liu told a mental health nurse he was hearing three voices, one his father’s and one his mother’s, and visual hallucinations including dogs.
On 12 April 2022 Mr Liu denied any perceptual disturbances or concerns for his safety. He enquired about how to reduce his sentence and how to get visits from his mother and a lawyer.
On 17 May 2022 Mr Liu told a mental health nurse he had ongoing hallucinations of the dog and voices telling him to kill or hurt himself. He said the auditory hallucinations occurred before 2017 but went away and started again two years prior, around the time of the incident of killing Mr Wong. He was described as very tearful. There was no evidence of major mood disturbance or thought disorder and his affect was reactive. He denied feeling persecuted or receiving messages from the television or radio.
On 31 May 2022 Mr Liu reported to Dr Dayalan, psychiatrist, hearing voices. He said he had heard voices from the age of 8 years. He reported a history of deliberate self-harm since 13 years of age. Dr Dayalan recorded no formal thought disorder, auditory hallucinations, no overt delusions, but had limited confidence in the assessment due to it being conducted by audio-visual link and language issues.
On 21 June 2022 Mr Liu was reviewed by Dr Dayalan and was noted to have improved in terms of his mood and subjective report of voices. He said he was being monitored but did not know who by, and he received messages from television. There were no particular mental state features indicative of severe mood disturbance or psychosis. Dr Dayalan described Mr Liu as a “complex presentation” with reports of psychotic symptoms that could be attributed to underlying mental illness or stress-related experiences.
On 16 August 2022 Mr Liu told Dr Dayalan the voices were nearly gone, he felt safe and positive and had no mental state abnormalities.
Mr Liu subsequently stopped taking his medication.
On 20 February 2023 Mr Liu was assessed by a mental health nurse with the assistance of an interpreter. He reported voices including auditory hallucinations telling him police set him up and he was wronged. The nurse assessed him as not presenting as acutely unwell as at that date.
On 21 February 2023 Mr Liu was seen by Dr Dayalan with an interpreter. He said he felt good and therefore did not think he needed medication. Dr Dayalan recorded that Mr Liu’s presentation was more consistent with a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. He changed his medication to encourage Mr Liu’s compliance.
On 7 March and 21 March 2023 Mr Liu said that he continued to hear voices telling him to speak to his lawyer. His medication was changed back to the original medication.
On 16 May 2023 Mr Liu was seen by Dr Dayalan with an interpreter. He said he was no longer hearing voices or messages from the television. Dr Dayalan noted no evidence of mood disturbance or psychosis.
On 18 August 2023 Mr Liu was assessed by Dr Natasha Rae, psychiatrist, with an interpreter. He said of the offence he heard from a friend that his business partner was planning to kill him and said he heard a voice telling him to go to his partner and fight him. He also denied hearing a voice. Dr Rae’s note recorded that the interpreter found his account was a little difficult to follow due to the contradictions. He said the voice had nothing to do with the alleged crime. He reported hearing command hallucinations and the belief that his body is being controlled. He said he receives messages from birds. Dr Rae noted that gaining a history was very challenging due to the language barrier and likely ongoing psychosis and possible thought disorder.
On 30 August 2023 Mr Liu told Dr Allan Campbell, psychiatry registrar, that his dog told him that “Jake” was putting a bad spell on him, so he killed him. He also said that birds and ducks told him that “Jake” was putting a spell on him, so he killed him. Dr Campbell recorded that Mr Liu said “The person that put the spell on him… because he had the motivation to kill me so I killed him first… he wants to process all of the drugs from the factory by himself.” Dr Campbell’s impression was of a relapse of psychosis with depressive symptoms after his psychotic relapse.
On 15 September 2023 Dr Rae recorded that Mr Liu’s psychosis “remains distressing despite some improvement”, that he was experiencing command auditory hallucinations, passivity delusions, visual hallucinations, paranoid delusions and delusions of reference. He was transferred to the MHSU on 16 September 2023.
On 18 September 2023 mental health staff spoke to Mr Liu’s mother, Ms Guo, and she said he had been experiencing auditory hallucinations since the age of 19.
On 20 September 2023 Mr Liu told a Mandarin speaking nurse that he killed a demon. Mr Liu said his voices started around 2019 when he started using ice.
On 21 September 2023 and 24 September 2023 Mr Liu said he had killed a demon. On 26 September 2023 he said Mr Wong is a devil.
On 9 October 2023 Dr Jean-Pierre Abega, psychiatry Resident Medical Officer, recorded that Mr Liu had a delusion that God told him to fight the devil, said he started hearing voices around 2019 when he started using ice, and he heard commanding voices from his Vietnamese boss, who lives in hell, which threatened him that if he did not obey, he would kill everyone. Mr Liu referred to receiving messages from a small dog running around his cell, that he killed the devil, that Jackie was controlling his thoughts, speech and internal organs. It was recorded that Mr Liu stated he killed Jackie due to the dispute over the cannabis farm, with no delusional content or motivations voiced. Dr Abega thought Mr Liu was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia that likely went undiagnosed since adolescence, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Dr Furst said:
“A review of the available history and Justice Health files indicates Mr Liu has not provided reliable history in relation to his purported symptoms, and therefore there can be no confidence in making a psychiatric diagnosis…
However, having assessed thousands of people with schizophrenia… I can confidently state that Mr Liu does not meet diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder or any other major mental illness. Even putting aside the obvious inconsistencies in his self report and the fanciful connections he asserts between symptoms he purports to have, there was no objective evidence of thought disorder at any time, his mood state and affect are not and were not consistent with a schizophrenic illness, and he did not have the requisite functional impairment to warrant the diagnosis of such an illness, both in the years before his arrest…or over the last 20 months in custody.”
“Mr Liu does not have a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment. He was aware of his alleged actions and aware of the wrongfulness of his alleged actions… Mr Liu does not have a defence available under s 28 [of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)].”
“Mr Liu does not have a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment. He was aware of his alleged actions and aware of the wrongfulness of his alleged actions. He had just driven up from Sydney to the farm near Bathurst at the time of the alleged offending and his actions appear to have been purposeful, apparently having been directed to kill the deceased one week earlier. Therefore, he also had the capacity to control himself.
The material reviewed in the Crown Case Statement, echoed by comments he has made about Jake/Jackie since he was arrested, suggest the most likely explanation for his actions in killing Wong was information he received to the effect that Jackie Wong intended to rip him off in some manner by harvesting the crop for himself. Those matters are not psychiatric in nature, being based on the reality of the criminality he was involved in and a potential sizeable financial loss for himself in particular, and a loss for whoever was directing him to grow the crop. Accordingly, Mr Liu does not have the defence of substantial impairment because of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) available to him either.”
Dr Furst gave evidence in the hearing of the application on 6 November 2025. He said he felt unable to provide a further report to the Crown, having been retained by Mr Liu. He had read the two reports of Dr Nielssen and reports from Dr Adam Martin, psychiatrist.
Responding to Dr Nielssen’s report, Dr Furst said his opinion was not based simply on Mr Liu being on medication and that therefore he might have missed something. He said his opinion was based on a very time consuming review of Mr Liu’s Justice Health notes and a review of the Crown Case Statement. He said his conclusion is that Mr Liu does not have an illness and that he was malingering symptoms of psychosis. Dr Furst referred to Mr Liu giving different accounts to two doctors twelve days apart of the symptoms that he said were driving his actions, a voice telling him to go to and fight [Mr Wong], his dog or birds and ducks telling him that Mr Wong put a spell on him, so he killed him, and the Crown case that he was told by his boss to kill Mr Wong. Dr Furst said from the inconsistencies he drew the conclusion he could not rely on what was being said by Mr Liu.
Dr Furst said that someone with schizophrenia with Mr Liu’s supposed severity of symptoms, with chronic unremitting voices or visual hallucinations, would be expected to show more bizarre behaviour or disorganised behaviour, or at least disorganised thinking, which is not consistent with someone organising and cultivating large amounts of cannabis plants, and repeating that conduct.
Dr Furst said it is possible that Mr Liu has a schizophrenic illness. He could not exclude that. He said he thought it unlikely, or if Mr Liu does have a psychotic illness, it may have developed after he was arrested because of the stress of being incarcerated and facing serious charges. He said he is fairly sure that Mr Liu does not tell the truth about his symptoms, so that makes it very hard to know whether he had a psychotic illness at the time of the alleged offence in 2020, but there is no objective evidence that he had a psychotic illness at that time. He confirmed that Mr Liu does not meet the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia or any other major mental illness, that he does not have a functional impairment necessary for any of those. He said the symptoms Mr Liu reported were reported inconsistently, such that he did not believe him to be suffering from them.
Dr Furst agreed that the nub of his opinion was that he did not believe Mr Liu’s self-reports about his symptoms. Dr Furst said if a person killed a person with a psychotic belief (such as the person killed was a demon) their account is almost always consistent, even many years later, because the memory of psychosis is intact even though the psychosis is gone with treatment.
Dr Martin prepared two reports, one dated 26 August 2025 and a supplementary report of 9 October 2025.
Dr Martin interviewed Mr Liu by audio-visual link, with an interpreter, on 30 July 2025 for 100 minutes and on 25 August 2025 for 60 minutes.
Dr Martin reported that Mr Liu said he very rarely heard voices, that medication had reduced his experience of voices. Mr Liu reported that sometimes he was sent messages by the television. He told Dr Martin that the person who was killed was the devil.
Dr Martin recorded that Mr Liu told him he had been taken for a checkup in China at the age of 15 or 16. He denied taking medication at the time because he said his mother did not want him to take medication. He denied receiving any mental health treatment prior to his arrest. He reported experiencing suicidal ideation in the time leading up to the alleged offending.
Dr Martin recorded that Mr Liu’s account of the alleged offending was that the week before the event his boss told him that the deceased was going to take over the farm and he was told by his boss to kill the deceased, but he ran away to Sydney, and he thought the person who he killed was reading his mind and put thoughts in his mind telling him to kill himself. He smoked a lot of ice to counter that person and on the fifth day he heard the boss’s voice saying to him that he had to kill the deceased or his boss would kill him and all his family. He said the person at the farm had put a curse on him. He said he strangled the deceased in the morning of the fifth day. He said when he killed him he was very scared because he knew he was sent by the devil, and he would come back from the afterlife, so he told the man that it was his boss’s order.
Dr Martin said that when he examined Mr Liu on 30 July 2025:
“There was no formal thought disorder. His affect was significantly blunted and restricted… Thought content included frequent references of a metaphysical nature around God, the devil and evil, and he described ongoing persecutory ideation involving surveillance and people being controlled by the devil, and experiences potentially consistent with delusional perception and ideas of reference [common psychotic phenomena seen in schizophrenia]. He was not overtly thought disordered and did not appear obviously hallucinated. He was alert, thoroughly oriented to his circumstances and able to concentrate adequately. No acute cognitive deficits were noted.”
Dr Martin recorded that when he interviewed Mr Liu again on 25 August 2025 Mr Liu told him that the deceased was not a human, but a devil. Mr Liu “reiterated an account of beliefs of being subjected to black magic and an evil method of having his organs controlled...”. Mr Liu told Dr Martin that the Chinese Communist Party implanted a SIM card in his brain around the age of 15 or 16.
Mr Liu told Dr Martin that he was reviewed by doctors on three occasions at the age of 15 or 16, at his mother’s insistence, but only two reports were prepared.
Mr Liu told Dr Martin that his boss told him over the phone to kill the deceased, but he “rejected” and fled. He said that was not the reason he killed him – “he’s a demon, he was trying to kill me”. He said his boss put a lot of pressure on him and said if he did not kill him he would be killed. He said he returned to the farm because it was his “mission”, because if he did not kill the deceased he would be dead.
Dr Martin said he challenged Mr Liu about some of the content of the recorded telephone calls and why there had been no obviously psychotic statements in his conversations, and Mr Liu said, “because they all know, they all understand”. He said “one of the recorded telephone calls, he was leaning towards me and if I didn’t tell the truth, he would definitely kill me”.
Mr Liu told Dr Martin that in the time leading up to the alleged offending, a few days before the incident, he thought people were monitoring him from inside and out, trying to control his thoughts. He said the deceased was not scared of him because he controlled Mr Liu’s thoughts. He said the reason he felt Mr Wong was a demon was because he controlled and read his mind and it was magic. He said the voices told him to kill Mr Wong and that was the only way he could survive.
Dr Martin said on that day there was no formal thought disorder, and no major communication difficulties (using a Mandarin interpreter). He said Mr Liu said he rarely hears voices or sees visions although he said every day in his cell there was a dog barking and the deceased often curses on him but he believes God saves him.
Dr Martin reviewed the Crown Case Statement. He reviewed Mr Liu’s recorded interview with police, both the video and transcript. He said Mr Liu presented as seemingly alert, lucid, orientated and cooperative. He said there was no overt psychomotor disturbance.
He reviewed the transcriptions of the electronic surveillance. He said:
“From my reading of the transcripts of the electronic recordings, there are no obvious statements made by the accused to demonstrate psychotic phenomena… Transcribed statements do not read as thought disordered [i.e. they are coherent and logical] and there is no overt suggestion in the surveillance material of significant mental illness or reference to the delusional material/perceptual abnormalities as self-reported in his narrative account at my psychiatric interviews… or as described in Justice Health records.”
Dr Martin reviewed Mr Liu’s Justice Health medical notes. He said it is apparent from review of those files that Mr Liu has seen multiple forensic psychiatric clinicians and was assessed as mentally ill and psychotic and diagnosed with schizophrenia. He noted multiple references to various types of delusions and hallucinations. He noted that while in custody Mr Liu has been prescribed antipsychotics.
Dr Martin had considered Mr Liu’s affidavit of 5 August 2025, which he described as “self-reporting experiences and beliefs of a psychotic nature and associated psychiatric management in custody”. He also noted the two documents purporting to be clinical documents [medical certificates] from July and August 2016.
Dr Martin stated:
“Regarding diagnosis Mr Liu has been diagnosed by experienced forensic psychiatrists working in the correctional centres with schizophrenia and is being treated with an antipsychotic in an area reserved for management of mentally ill inmates. He has self-reported experience of auditory and visual hallucinations, and described beliefs of a seemingly psychotic nature around religious, metaphysical and persecutory beliefs. A document has been produced, translated from Mandarin, which purports to be a form of psychiatric report/certificate dated 2016, essentially diagnosing him with schizophrenia…
…
In my opinion, it would be appropriate for the court to explore whether these documents are genuine rather than accepting them at face value... I have some scepticism in this regard…
In my opinion, Mr Liu does present with patterns of thought and reported experience that are reasonably persuasive of him having developed a mental illness. However, I note, for instance… that Dr Andrew White has noted his impression and recorded: ‘there remains a slight suspicion that there is, at least, embellishment of symptoms. He is very forthcoming with psychotic phenomena, despite an apparent lack of insight. However, on balance, I would say that he has genuine psychosis.’
There are obvious limitations to my assessment, having only assessed him for two interviews, although with the benefit of having reviewed a large amount of collateral evidentiary material around police surveillance… in my view, there are significant inconsistencies in his presentation when all the information is looked at holistically. These are as follows:
Essentially, Mr Liu is presenting with self-reported psychotic phenomena and is being treated for a chronic psychotic condition and has presented apparent evidence of pre-existing psychotic illness as a teenager. He gives a narrative account of a direct association between persecutory beliefs of fear of being killed [by the deceased] and for instance of hearing command hallucinations, and he self-reports a direct nexus between the alleged offending and apparent features of mental illness.
However, the telephone intercepts and police surveillance apparently do not capture any features of psychosis, and from what I can ascertain, he is recorded as coherent, talking about the cannabis enterprise, making rational comments in relation to motive [for murder] and issues in relation to locating the body or the state of the corpse impacting on the police investigation, for instance, which in my view has relevance to his capacity to understand wrongfulness. His appearance and presentation at the electronically recorded police interview does not reveal any overt features of psychosis, with no expressions of bizarre or implausible thought content. This raises doubt about whether he was in fact mentally ill at the time of his arrest and preceding, and it is in stark contrast to his more recent presentations, where he speaks spontaneously and at length around apparently psychotic themes.
It is plausible that he has subsequently developed a mental illness [schizophrenia], as can happen in custody at his age, hypothetically in the context of cultural background [i.e. thoughts around Chinese State surveillance, and then being from a non-English speaking background in the punitive environment, facing serious legal issues]. It is plausible, as Dr White suggested, that he has genuine psychosis, but might also be embellishing aspects of his mental illness, potentially to confer legal advantage. However, most importantly in my view, is the fact that there is minimal evidence of active major mental illness, impairment or disability from around the time of the alleged offending up to and including his arrest.”
“Firstly, there is limited evidence of mental health impairment at the time of the alleged offending, other than his retrospective self-report and the questionable medical certificates…
…
There is significant objective material presented strongly suggestive that the alleged offending occurred with some planning and with a level of organisation in relation to concealing the crime. Statements captured in the police surveillance are not supportive of the proposition that he did not know the nature and quality of the alleged offending, or was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness [reason with moderate composure], as per s 28 of the M**ental Health Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions*)* Act*.* In my view, the proposition that the mental health impairment defences are available to him in the circumstances, given the above information, is highly contentious.
For similar reasons, the proposition that he has the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, as per s 23A of the Crimes Act is highly contentious, given that there is very limited information to demonstrate that he was experiencing psychosis around the time of the alleged offending that affected his perception of events, ability to judge right from wrong or affected his capacity to exercise proper control over his actions.”
“The above reports of Drs Furst and Nielssen do not cause me to change my original opinion as set out in my earlier report. I tend to agree with the general thrust of Dr Furst’s assessment in expressing scepticism about Mr Liu’s presentation and how it might relate to issues of criminal responsibility.
There are many atypical features of Mr Liu’s presentation, which in the circumstances raise significant suspicion about whether he is a genuine or reliable historian. It does not make clinical sense for a man who was supposedly vulnerable to psychosis, with apparent prior presentations as an adolescent, and who was using large amounts of substances in the time prior to the alleged offending while not being treated, for there not to have been any objective evidence of significant disorganised behaviour, impairment or disability until apparently much later, when in custody.
As previously noted, the police surveillance material does not provide evidence of psychosis, and in my view, this fact is not explained by perhaps a guardedness in Mr Liu to revealing underlying psychotic phenomena. In my opinion, it is much more likely that features of mental illness have been subsequently concocted.
The most generous explanation in my view is that it is plausible that Mr Liu has developed a psychotic illness in custody, for which he is now receiving treatment.
There is minimal reliable information demonstrating that he was mentally ill at the time of the alleged offending. I maintain the view that the hypothesis that the alleged violence occurred as a consequence of mental illness is highly speculative. In my opinion, the inconsistencies around Mr Liu’s presentation are not adequately explained or understandable through the prism of a fluctuating mental illness, but are rather much more likely in the context of embellishment of features of mental illness to evade criminal responsibility.”
The applicant submitted that he pleaded guilty after he was advised that defences of substantial impairment and mental impairment were not supported by expert opinion, based on the report of Dr Furst. He submitted there is a real issue to be determined in terms of the different expert opinions, now that Dr Nielssen’s report has been obtained.
Counsel submitted Mr Liu first reported his mental health issues to his legal representatives in September 2023, but he had been reporting symptoms and receiving treatment in custody for about 18 months before then. Counsel submitted if Mr Liu is said to have concocted his symptoms it does not make sense that he did not tell his legal representatives of them earlier. He submitted that his not telling his legal representatives earlier might be attributable to his fear of being stigmatised or the effects of medication. Counsel submitted that Mr Liu’s mother’s evidence as to what she said to people in Australia about her son’s mental health should be assessed in light of her fear of disclosing his mental illness. Counsel submitted that the evidence of Mr Liu’s prior treatment in China shows that his mental illness is not a recent invention.
Counsel submitted that the variances in the ages reported by Mr Liu when he saw doctors in China or when his symptoms began do not necessarily lead to an inference of fabrication by him, but may be due to his conditions.
Counsel submitted it would be a matter for the trier of fact at trial as to whether Mr Liu’s reports of his symptoms at the time of the charged offence should be accepted. He submitted that the experts’ opinions about whether or not Mr Liu’s reports are to be accepted or viewed as credible are inadmissible in a trial and should not be determinative of whether he is permitted to change his plea.
Counsel placed reliance on the fundamental importance of the jury in determining criminal responsibility, and submitted that it is in the interests of justice that a jury determine if Mr Liu has a mental illness defence.
Counsel submitted:
“If there is a possibility the applicant was genuinely experiencing a psychotic illness at the time of the killing it is fundamental to the interests of justice that that issue be determined at trial rather than holding the applicant to his plea of guilty.”
In respect of the factors relevant to the interests of justice test the Crown submitted as follows:
The relevant facts upon which the Crown intended to rely were known to the applicant, being set out in the detailed Agreed Facts Statement which had been professionally translated for the applicant and which he had signed four weeks before his plea in the Local Court and five weeks before his adherence to his plea in this Court.
The applicant’s experienced counsel and solicitor had conferred with him on seven occasions in twelve months with an interpreter.
The applicant’s counsel had provided him written advice, with the Crown Case Statement, both of which were translated and which the applicant said he had read and understood. The applicant said to his counsel “I see there is plenty of evidence that I committed the murder.”
The applicant was assessed by Dr Richard Furst and was advised by his counsel about the significance of that assessment for potential mental health defences, and the applicant’s options.
The applicant raised with his lawyers the prospect of him assisting police with information to obtain a reduced sentence.
The elements of the charged offence and factual allegation were not complex.
The plea in this Court was taken in a formal, careful and clear way with the applicant’s counsel present.
There was no reason to suppose that the applicant was not thoroughly aware of what he was doing when he entered his plea.
On the material before the court there was no real question about the applicant’s guilt of the murder charge.
The application for withdrawal was first raised at a mention on 4 April 2025, some seven months after the plea was entered in this court.
Dr Nielssen, in his report, noted “the absence of objective features of chronic psychotic illness, including impairment in cognitive or social function, or any obvious communication disorder”.
When Mr Liu was assessed on his reception into police custody on 29 March 2022 he denied any current or past mental illness and was observed not to have any impaired intellectual function.
On his reception to prison on the same date a nurse who reviewed Mr Liu noted the absence of mental illness.
In an assessment on 30 March 2022 Mr Liu denied having symptoms of psychosis and his speech was spontaneous, logical and coherent, with no delusional or obsessive thinking elicited.
The Crown relied on the opinions of Dr Furst and Dr Martin.
The Crown submitted that the Court should exercise caution about the genuineness of the two certificates from China.
The Crown submitted that Mr Liu does not assert his innocence, and that his application is opportunistic, in that he does not say that he did not commit the crime or he did not know what he was doing when he pleaded guilty, but that he may have an opportunity to run a defence case.
The Crown relied on the evidence of psychiatrist Dr Natasha Rae who saw Mr Liu in custody on 18 August 2023 and noted “he states that the voices had nothing to do with the alleged crime”.
The Crown submitted that the Court would not find any reason to suppose that the applicant was not thoroughly aware of what he was doing when he entered his plea of guilty, that there is no real question about his guilt of the charge to which he has pleaded guilty, and it has not been shown that the plea of guilty lacks integrity.
Mr Liu did not say that he did not understand what he was doing when he pleaded guilty to the murder charge. He said he pleaded guilty because of advice that on the basis of Dr Furst’s report he did not have a mental health defence.
His participation in the process of negotiating the charges with the DPP, including resisting the criminal group charge and offering to provide information to police in the hope of a lesser sentence, strongly suggests he was aware of what was going on and aware of his interests. He was well informed of the Agreed Facts by having been provided with a translated version.
The real issue, as his counsel submitted, is, is there a reasonable possibility he was genuinely experiencing a psychotic illness at the time he killed Mr Wong.
On that issue, Mr Liu has given different accounts of the ages at which he began to experience symptoms. That is one factor which may detract from him genuinely having a mental illness. In custody his observed and reported symptoms seemed to wax and wane, according to the Justice Health Doctors’ notes, not consistently such as might be explicable by successful treatment, but inconsistently. For example Dr Dayalan observed inconsistent or fluctuating symptoms and Dr Rae noted inconsistent accounts.
Mr Liu has given inconsistent accounts to doctors, including the Justice Health doctors, of his reason for killing Mr Wong, sometimes the demon or devil explanation, sometimes consistent with the Crown case that the boss told him to do so, sometimes both combined in the same report, which seems contrary to Dr Furst’s evidence that generally psychotic memories remain consistent. He has made statements, reflected in the Agreed Facts, admitting to killing Mr Wong and for a real, not delusional, motive. Those factors in combination tend to detract from the genuineness of Mr Liu’s reported symptoms.
Dr Nielssen, although giving an opinion favourable to Mr Liu’s claim of mental illness, made some observations of Mr Liu which were inconsistent with his opinion. He said Mr Liu did not report typical symptoms of Bipolar Disorder, his answers in his interview with police (on 29 March 2022) were “reasonably complete and coherent”, and there were no clear signs of active mental illness in his video recorded interview with police. Dr Nielssen said when he interviewed Mr Liu his speech was logical and coherent and no delusional beliefs were elicited. Dr Nielssen noted the absence of objective features of chronic psychotic illness.
Dr Furst’s opinion of there being no objective evidence of thought disorder was partly supported by Dr Nielssen’s observations. Dr Furst expressed the opinion that Mr Liu’s reported symptoms were not consistent with his conduct in the cultivation operation. Dr Furst was strongly of the opinion that Mr Liu does not meet the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia or similar mental illness.
Dr Martin also noted the many atypical features of Mr Liu’s presentation. He said it does not make clinical sense for a man who was supposedly vulnerable to psychosis, with apparent prior presentations as an adolescent, to have not displayed objective evidence of significant disorganised behaviour or impairment until when he was in custody. He said his appearance and presentation in the recorded police interview did not reveal any overt features of psychosis, no expressions of bizarre or implausible thought content. Dr Martin said the police surveillance material does not provide evidence of psychosis. Rather, from Dr Martin’s review of the surveillance material, he considered Mr Liu was coherent and making rational comments in relation to the motive for killing Mr Wong and in relation to police locating his body or the state of his body impacting on the police investigation.
Dr Martin thought Mr Liu may have developed a mental illness in custody but said there is minimal evidence of active major mental illness, impairment or disability from around the time of the alleged offending up to and including his arrest.
Dr Furst said that Mr Liu was aware of his actions and aware of the wrongfulness of his actions in having killed Mr Wong, having driven up from Sydney to the farm near Bathurst, and his actions appearing purposeful, in accordance with the direction he had been given to kill Mr Wong a week earlier.
I accepted the expert opinions of Dr Martin and Dr Furst as to their observations of Mr Liu in his interview with police, his behaviour at the time of the killing of Mr Wong, and Dr Martin’s opinion about Mr Liu’s coherent presentation in the police surveillance material. Even Dr Nielssen did not observe signs of mental illness in Mr Liu in his interview with police.
There is evidence from Mr Liu, his mother, Ms Guo, and the Chinese medical certificates, to the effect that Mr Liu showed symptoms of schizophrenia in his teens and was diagnosed with such. The process by which that occurred, as described by Ms Guo, of Mr Liu presenting to the hospital on each occasion without a referral, being interviewed by a doctor for about an hour and the certificate produced, seems somewhat unusual by Australian standards. However, not being informed of the processes in China for examining people with mental illness and the nature of reports produced, I am prepared to find in Mr Liu’s favour that he showed symptoms and was diagnosed with schizophrenia in his teens.
The absence of any continuing features of mental illness, other than Mr Liu’s account, and absence of any presentations to hospitals after he arrived in Australia is an unusual feature in someone with a mental illness.
A reading of the police surveillance material suggests Mr Liu’s statements about his activities discussed therein were coherent and purposeful, and his statements relied on by the Crown as admissions about the murder, the circumstances of the burial of Mr Wong’s body and the likely progress of the police investigation into Mr Wong’s death also seem coherent. Not being an expert, I am reinforced in that view by Dr Martin’s expert opinion about Mr Liu’s presentation in the surveillance material.
His presentation in custody is not entirely consistent. But he is being treated by doctors in custody with antipsychotic medication. Perhaps the doctors are taking a conservative approach. However, I am prepared to make a finding in favour of Mr Liu that he is being treated for symptoms of mental illness in custody, and has been so treated since 2022.
Being prepared to find that Mr Liu had symptoms of mental illness in his teens and has displayed symptoms of mental illness in custody since 2022, there is not evidence that at the time he killed Mr Wong and until his arrest in March 2022 he was suffering from mental illness symptoms, other than Mr Liu’s general account that he had been consistently hearing voices since his teens.
If I thought Mr Liu had a mental illness at the time of the killing or there was a triable issue of such, it would be in the interests of justice to permit him to withdraw his plea of guilty. However, the evidence is eloquently persuasive that Mr Liu was not suffering from mental illness symptoms at the time he killed Mr Wong, which affected his conduct in so doing. Therefore, that does not provide a basis in the interests of justice to permit him to withdraw his plea.
There being no other basis identified which would in the interests of justice require him to be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty, Mr Liu’s application for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty to the charge of murdering Chong Kai Wong is refused.
**********
R
Yilin Liu [2025] NSWSC 1370
(2022) 110 NSWLR 163