THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HARDY [No 2] [2025] WASC 508 (1 December 2025)

(a) first, whether Mr Hardy was mentally impaired at the time that he unlawfully murdered Mr Peasley; and

(b) secondly, if so, was it more likely than not that his mental impairment deprived him of one of the capacities contained in s 27(1) of the Criminal Code.

1. Two consultant psychiatrists were called to give evidence. Dr Adam Brett (who was called by the prosecution) and Dr Elizabeth Tate (who was called by the defence).
2. Both psychiatrists interviewed Mr Hardy and reviewed materials that were provided to them. They each prepared written reports and reviewed and considered the reports prepared by the other. They reached the same conclusions.
3. They both agreed that Mr Hardy was mentally impaired by treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia at the time that he unlawfully murdered Mr Peasley. They also both agreed that Mr Hardy's mental impairment deprived him of the capacity to know that he ought not murder Mr Peasley.
4. I found the evidence of Dr Brett and Dr Tate to be cogent and compelling. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hardy was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time that he unlawfully murdered Mr Peasley and that his mental impairment deprived him of the capacity to know that he ought not murder Mr Peasley. I find Mr Hardy not guilty of the murder of Mr Peasley on account of mental impairment
5. Given my verdict, the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023 (WA) (CLMI Act) requires me to make an order in relation to Mr Hardy under pt 5 of that Act. As the offence of murder is a serious offence, I must make a custody order unless I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that any risk that he appears to present to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.
6. No submission was made that that risk could be adequately managed under a community supervision order. Nor does the evidence before me establish that it is more likely than not that that risk could be adequately managed under such an order. In my view, it is appropriate that a custody order be made.
7. The CLMI Act also requires me to set a limiting term for the order. To do this, I am required to estimate the term of imprisonment that a court would have imposed if Mr Hardy had been convicted of murder after pleading guilty at the first available opportunity. In making this estimate I am obliged to ignore Mr Hardy's mental impairment.
8. Subject to the exceptional circumstances identified in s 279(4)(a) and s 279(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, the sentence of life imprisonment for murder is a mandatory sentence.
9. In my view, if Mr Hardy had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, and the court sentencing him did not take into account his mental impairment, he would have received a sentence of life imprisonment. I do not consider that the exceptional circumstances identified in s 279(4)(a) and s 279(4)(b) are present in this case and I consider that if Mr Hardy had been criminally responsible, the seriousness of his offending would have required a life term of imprisonment.
10. I will therefore set the limiting term of Mr Hardy's custody order as the duration of Mr Hardy's life.
11. I set out my reasons for these conclusions, including the findings of fact upon which I have relied, and the principles of law that I have applied below.

1. As I have said, the relevant facts were not in issue at trial. I make the findings of fact in paragraphs 28 to 93 below, based on the agreed statement of facts. I also make additional findings of fact in relation to Mr Hardy's police interviews in paragraphs 94 to 103 below.

1. Mr Hardy was born on 26 September 1990.[4]
2. Mr Hardy has treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia.[5]
3. In March 2023, Mr Hardy was discharged from Bunbury Regional Hospital under a community treatment order, and referred to the Bunbury Mental Health Unit of St Jude's Health Care Services in Bunbury.[6]
4. On or about 8 March 2023, Mr Hardy moved into a house leased by St Jude's as the sole resident.[7]
5. Mr Hardy was able to manage himself quite well and was known to be usually very polite, well-mannered, and neatly dressed.[8]

1. Mr Peasley was born on 23 November 1982.[9]
2. In 2014, Mr Peasley fell off a balcony and suffered a head injury. He was left with an acquired brain injury.[10]
3. Mr Peasley was known to drink wine daily and smoke cigarettes rarely.[11] He was known to be a kind-hearted person. He needed a lot of care and support. He was known to be very placid and easily taken advantage of.[12]
4. In about early May 2023, Mr Peasley moved into the same house as Mr Hardy. After that, Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley lived together.[13]
5. Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley lived together for about seven months before the incident giving rise to Mr Hardy's present charges.[14]

1. The house which Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley shared is a three bedroom, two bathroom house with a double garage at the rear, and a small courtyard.[15]
2. The house was leased by St Jude's in April 2021.[16]
3. The authorised managing agents of the house were Umbrella Realty. They conducted routine three-monthly inspections of the house.[17]
4. Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley each had their own bedroom. Mr Peasley's bedroom was the main bedroom with an ensuite bathroom.[18]
5. St Jude's provided Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley with services and assistance with administering their medications.[19]
6. In October 2023, the owners of the house decided to sell it.[20]

1. Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley got on well most of the time.[21] St Jude's staff never observed any physical altercations between them, although they sometimes saw Mr Hardy being verbally aggressive towards Mr Peasley.[22]
2. Mr Hardy was a heavy smoker. He would sometimes borrow cigarettes off Mr Peasley. If Mr Peasley was asleep, Mr Hardy would sometimes sneak into his room and steal his cigarettes.[23] Mr Hardy stealing Mr Peasley's cigarettes would sometimes upset Mr Peasley.[24]
3. Mr Hardy would also sometimes borrow money off Mr Peasley and not pay him back.[25]

28 August 2023 - Mr Hardy assaults a support worker

1. At about 3:15 pm on Monday 28 August 2023, Mr Hardy assaulted Richard Sigey, a disability support worker who provided support at the house in which Mr Hardy lived.
2. Mr Sigey was in the office at the house (the third bedroom)[26] when he heard a loud bang on the office door. He opened the door and saw Mr Hardy standing there. Mr Hardy walked up to him and punched him in the mouth. As Mr Hardy hit Mr Sigey, Mr Sigey fell backwards in the chair and his right upper arm hit the metal grill of the bed which was behind him, causing pain and bleeding. Mr Sigey got up and stood behind the chair to try and use it as a barrier.[27]
3. Mr Sigey asked Mr Hardy what he had done to him. Mr Hardy looked at Mr Sigey, sighed and walked out of the office. Mr Hardy walked into the loungeroom and Mr Sigey heard another loud bang. He saw Mr Hardy walking to the back of the house, opening the sliding glass door and walking out the back gate.[28]
4. Mr Sigey noticed that the office door now had a hole in it, and Mr Peasley's television in the loungeroom was lying on the ground smashed.[29]
5. When Mr Sigey returned to work, Mr Hardy apologised to him and said that he did not know what happened to him that day.[30]
6. Mr Sigey thought that this incident came out of nowhere. He usually found Mr Hardy to be very polite and helpful. He thought that Mr Hardy had not shown any angst or been violent towards him before.[31]

1. On or about Monday 16 October 2023, Mr Hardy stole a Stanley branded Antivibe Drywall hammer from Bunnings Treendale.[32]

1. At 7:00 am on Friday 20 October 2023, Mr Sigey arrived at Mr Hardy's house for his shift. When he arrived, the overnight St Jude's support worker, Mariana Abubakar, was still at the house. Mr Peasley was awake and sitting in the lounge room watching his phone and playing DVDs. He was in good spirits and laughing at the DVDs and his phone. Mr Hardy was asleep in his bedroom.[33]

1. At 8:30am, Glenn Frawley, St Jude's southwest maintenance officer, arrived at the house to perform some maintenance for an upcoming inspection. He painted the loungeroom and Mr Peasley's room. Mr Peasley was sitting in the front loungeroom watching DVDs. Mr Frawley saw Mr Hardy calmly sitting in the rear yard fixing a fishing reel. Mr Hardy was friendly and chatty. Mr Frawley finished his jobs and left at about lunchtime.[34]

1. Between 9:00 am to 9:30 am, Chad Roberts, another support worker, took Mr Hardy to the Commonwealth Bank and to do some shopping. Mr Hardy took his medication.
2. At 10:15 am, Mr Roberts dropped Mr Hardy off at home and he seemed in a good mood.[35]

1. At 1.00 pm, Mr Sigey saw Mr Peasley lying on his bed after having lunch. Mr Sigey thought that he would have consumed about one litre or more of cask wine by that stage and was quite intoxicated.[36]

1. At 2.00 pm, Amanda Wyatt, St Jude's housing and accommodation coordinator, rang Mr Sigey and told him that people were going to attend the house at 3:30pm to make sure everything was ready for the viewing the next day. She asked him to take Mr Peasley and Mr Hardy for a drive so that they would not be there for the inspection.[37]

1. At 3:00 pm, Mr Sigey asked Mr Peasley and Mr Hardy whether they wanted to go out for a drive, but they declined.[38]
2. When Mr Sigey spoke to Mr Peasley, he was lying on his bed resting. He said that he just wanted to lay in his bed. Mr Sigey thought that Mr Peasley stayed inside the house all day.[39]
3. When Mr Sigey asked Mr Hardy, he was sitting in the backyard smoking. Mr Sigey thought that Mr Hardy had spent most of the day in the backyard smoking. He noticed that Mr Hardy was more reserved than normal and not engaging in any conversation.[40]
4. Mr Sigey had not heard any arguing or fighting between Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley that day.[41]

1. At about 3:25 pm, Jorgia Whitham, a real estate agent with Umbrella Realty, arrived at the house. She went to the front door and as she approached it, she could see through the frosted glass a figure of a tall slim male, who she recognised to be Mr Hardy. As she knocked loudly, she saw him walk from the living room out through the back door and out of the back gate.[42]
2. As Ms Whitham opened the front door, Mr Sigey approached her from the bedroom area and said hello. She told Mr Sigey she was there to do the sale showing and he said he was expecting her. She said she was going to go through and turn on all the lights and she then closed the front door behind her. She went into the front bedrooms and bathroom and turned on the lights and opened the blinds. She then returned to the front living area and opened those blinds. Ms Whitham did not notice anything out of place.[43]
3. Mr Sigey then asked Ms Whitham to wait while he told Mr Hardy and Mr Peasley (who he told her was asleep) that she was there.[44]
4. Around this time, Mr Hardy retrieved the hammer he had stolen. He entered Mr Peasley's bedroom and struck him to his head at least 15 times, principally with the bladed end of the hammer.[45]
5. Mr Sigey walked from the front door down to Mr Peasley's bedroom as he believed Mr Hardy was in the backyard. As Mr Sigey walked past the kitchen, he saw Mr Hardy come out of Mr Peasley's open bedroom door and quickly put something behind his back with his left hand. Mr Sigey noticed that Mr Hardy had a scared look on his face.[46]
6. Mr Sigey asked Mr Hardy if he was okay, and he said that he was.[47]
7. As Mr Sigey was going into Mr Peasley's bedroom, he saw Mr Hardy leave the house through the back door.[48]
8. When Mr Sigey walked into Mr Peasley's bedroom, he found him lying on the floor on his left side, breathing heavily. There was a pool of blood around his head. He was not moving at all.[49]
9. Mr Sigey told Ms Whitham something bad had happened and then called 000 and Amanda Wyatt. The 000 operator advised him to stay in his car in case Mr Hardy came back, so he got into his car and moved it one or two houses away.[50]

1. At 3:45 pm, Ms Abubakar arrived at the house to start her shift. She entered the house through the back door. She could not find anyone in the house or the office, so she rang Mr Sigey. He was sitting outside in his car. He came back into the house through the front door and they went into Mr Peasley's room together. Ms Abubakar saw Mr Peasley lying on the floor, breathing loudly.[51]
2. They noticed a hammer near the outside table and chairs where Mr Hardy normally sits. Mr Sigey pointed it out to Ms Abubakar. She did not recognise it.[52]
3. A blood-stained hammer was subsequently seized by forensic police officers. It was located on the ground under the garden tap at the rear of the house. It was labelled exhibit 'BWE7'. The hammer was later identified as a Stanley branded Antivibe Drywall hammer.[53]

1. At about 3:50 pm, paramedics arrived at the house. They found Mr Peasley on the floor of his bedroom. There was a large pool of congealed blood (about 1.5 litres) under his head.[54]
2. After some initial treatment at the scene, Mr Peasley was taken by the RAC helicopter to Royal Perth Hospital for further treatment.[55]
3. At about 4.00 pm the police arrived and a protected forensic area was declared.[56]

1. At 7:39 pm, Mr Hardy was located by police.[57] He was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm.[58]
2. At 8:31 pm, Mr Hardy was taken by police to the Bunbury Police Station.[59] When Mr Hardy got there, he contacted his family and a lawyer.[60]

24 October 2023 - Mr Peasley dies and Mr Hardy is arrested for murder

1. On the morning of 24 October 2023, Mr Peasley's life support machine at Royal Perth Hospital was turned off. He subsequently passed away and his life was declared extinct at 1:35 pm.[61]
2. That day, police attended Bunbury Regional Prison and arrested Mr Hardy for murder.[62]
3. When Mr Hardy was told that he was charged with the murder of Mr Peasley, he replied 'I am sorry to Jonno's family'.[63]

1. A postmortem examination was conducted of Mr Peasley by Dr Reimer Junckerstorff and Dr Kiralee Patton. Their opinion was that the cause of Mr Peasley's death was 'head injury'.[64]
2. The findings of their postmortem examination were as follows:[65]

(a) a very overweight middle-aged man with chop-like injuries and lacerations on the scalp;

(b) underlying comminuted and depressed skull fractures and disruption of the brain;

(c) neuropathology macroscopic examination of the brain showed a recent traumatic brain injury composed of extensive disruption to the dura with extensive subdural haemorrhage and disruption and fragmentation of the brain tissue, contusions on the right surface of the brain and subarachnoid haemorrhage;

(d) signs of previous cranial surgery with a metal plate on the right side of the skull (titanium cranioplasty);

(e) lacerations and bruising on the right hand;

(f) lungs were fluid-laden and congested, both non-specific findings;

(g) liver showed fatty change (steatosis);

(h) microscopic examination of the major body tissues confirmed the presence of fluid-laden lungs (oedema) and steatotic liver with fibrosis;

(i) mild coronary artery atherosclerosis and focal replacement-type fibrosis in the heart muscle;

(j) fresh haemorrhage in bruises on the undersurface of the scalp at the right side, the back of the right hand, the right neck and the left thumb;

(k) toxicology analysis showed the presence of medications in keeping with emergency medical care; and

(l) alcohol, cannabinoids and other common drugs were not detected.

1. The following injuries were noted:[66]

(a) a chop-like injury to the right side of the head that perforated the subcutaneous soft tissue and penetrated the brain (injury 2);

(b) ten irregular chop-like injuries to the right side of the head (injuries 1 and 3 - 11) that either perforated or penetrated the subcutaneous soft tissue;

(c) a laceration to the right side of the back of the neck that penetrated the subcutaneous soft tissue (injury 12);

(d) an abrasion to the right side of the back of the neck (injury 13);

(e) a chop-like injury to the left side of the head that perforated the subcutaneous soft tissue with an underlying corresponding skull fracture (injury 14);

(f) an 'I' shaped laceration to the left side of the head (joining injury 9) that perforated the subcutaneous soft tissue with an underlying corresponding 'V' shaped skull fracture (injury 15);

(g) an 'L' shaped laceration to the left side of the head that penetrated the subcutaneous soft tissue (injury 16);

(h) complex comminuted and depressed fractures to the skull and multiple loose pieces of bone (injury 19);

(i) a dent to the titanium plate with a few associated scratches (injury 20);

(j) bruising to the undersurface of the scalp on the left side of the head (injury 21);

(k) a dark red bruise in the subcutaneous tissue of the back of the neck (injury 22);

(l) a brown scab to the top lip (injury 17);

(m) two red bruises to the inside of the top lip (injury 18);

(n) lacerations or bruising to the right middle finger (injury 23), right ring finger (injuries 24 - 26), back of the right hand (injury 27) that caused subcutaneous bruising;

(o) lacerations or bruising to the palmar surface of the right hand (injury 28), palmar surface of the right middle finger (injury 29), back of the right wrist (injury 30), front of the right upper arm (injury 31) and right upper arm (injury 32);

(p) an abrasion on the base of the left thumb that caused subcutaneous bruising (injury 33);

(q) a subcutaneous bruise to the metacarpophalangeal joint of the left thumb (injury 34);

(r) a red bruise on the right shin (injury 35);

(s) two faint purple bruises on the right thigh (injury 36);

(t) a red abrasion on the left side of the chest at the upper aspect (injury 37).

1. Dr Patton's opinion was that at least 15 individual events must have occurred to inflict injuries 1 to 16. She considered that injuries 9 and 10 may be the same injury and injuries 9 and 15 may have occurred from more than one individual event.[67]
2. Dr Patton's opinion was that most of the injuries were chop-like hybrid injuries (blunt and sharp force trauma) which are caused by heavy instruments or weapons which have at least one sharp cutting edge, an example being an axe. She explained that a typical chop wound is gaping, with exposure of the soft tissues and sometimes bone. She considered that when there are blows to parts of the body covering bone such as the head, there are typically underlying crush-type, depressed and/or comminuted skull fractures.[68]
3. Dr Patton's opinion was that injuries 1 to 16 may have been caused by the hammer depicted in the photographs at BP 6.24 to 6.27.[69] She thought that:

(a) the blade end of the hammer may have caused injuries 1 to 10, 12 to 15 (total 14);[70]

(b) injuries 9 and 11 may have also had involvement from the face end of the hammer due to the associated abrasions present;[71]

(c) injury 16 may have been caused by the face end of the hammer.[72]

1. Dr Patton considered that injuries 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 15 are all likely major contributors to the complex comminuted and depressed skull fractures.[73]
2. Dr Patton's opinion was that it is not possible to precisely assess the degree of force required to cause each injury, however, the complex comminuted and depressed skull fractures to the back of the head would have required a significant degree of force to cause the initial skull fracture. She thought that the skull would have fractured more readily on further blows.[74]
3. Dr Patton considered that a considerable degree of force was required to cause injury 2 for it to perforate the skin, titanium cranioplasty plate, the dura, and into the brain tissue.[75]
4. Dr Patton's opinion was that the mechanism of death was multifactorial. She opined that a traumatic brain injury, such as the one suffered by Mr Peasley, can result in a cascade of events which can cause cell death and damage to neurological pathways. She said that as a result of this, respiratory failure, cardiac arrythmia, and finally cardiac arrest can occur.[76]

21 October 2023 - Mr Hardy's first police interview

1. Mr Hardy was first interviewed at 11.00 am on 21 October 2023 at the Bunbury Police Station. The interview concluded at 1:47 pm.[77] At the conclusion of the interview, Mr Hardy was remanded in custody pending further investigations by the police.[78]
2. Mr Hardy said a number of things to police during his interview that were set out in the Agreed Statement of Material Facts. Those matters are set out in Schedule 1 to these reasons. I make findings in relation to each of the matters set out in Schedule 1.
3. During this interview, Mr Hardy admitted that he assaulted Mr Peasley with the hammer. For example, the following exchange occurred:

HARDY: Yeah, he was - was awake.

DET CON MURRAY: Yeah. And so how did you lash out at him?

HARDY: Well, with a hammer.

DET CON MURRAY: with a hammer.

HARDY: Yeah.

DET CON MURRAY: Yeah. And what did you do with the hammer?

HARDY: I just, um, hit him over the head and that. Oh, yeah.

DET CON MURRAY: Hit him over the head. How many times do you think you hit him?

HARDY: About 10 times.

DET CON MURRAY: Okay. 10 times all to the head?

HARDY: Yeah.

1. The police asked Mr Hardy why he attacked Mr Peasley but he was unable to articulate any sensible reason.

24 October 2023 - Mr Hardy's second police interview

1. Mr Hardy was interviewed by police again after Mr Peasley died. This interview commenced at 2:27 pm on 24 October 2023 and took place at Bunbury Regional Prison. The interview concluded at 3:43 pm.[79]
2. Again, Mr Hardy said a number of things to police during his interview that were set out in the Agreed Statement of Material Facts. Those matters are set out in Schedule 2 to these reasons. I make findings in relation to each of the matters set out in Schedule 2. The admissions made included admissions that Mr Hardy struck Mr Peasley with a hammer.
3. The police asked Mr Hardy why he attacked Mr Peasley. After discussing how many times he hit Mr Peasley, the following exchange occurred:

DET MCADOO: Why so many times? What were you trying to do?

HARDY: I was trying to end him, eh.

1. Mr Hardy was also asked about why he used the sharp end of the hammer. The following exchange occurred:

DET S/CON SAMPEY: So, Chad, which - the first time you struck him, which edge - which side of the hammer did you use?

HARDY: Uh, the, um, pointy bit. The sharp thing.

DET S/CON SAMPEY: The sharp bit.

HARDY: Yeah.

DET S/CON SAMPEY: And why did you use that part?

HARDY: 'Cause, um, I thought I'd just, you know, like, try to end him quickly. You know? I didn't wanna, like, fucking sit there for fucking 2 hours. You know?

DET S/CON SAMPEY: Yeah.

HARDY: Just try to end him quick. Um - - -

DET S/CON SAMPEY: quicker. And you thought the sharper bit could do it

HARDY: Yeah.

1. The police asked Mr Hardy why he did not ask for help when he became unwell. His answers are difficult to understand (perhaps because of his mental illness) but at one point he told police that he thought there was nothing that anyone could do to help him. The following exchange occurred:

DET MCADOO: Why haven't you asked for help? Why haven't you asked for help and said, "This is what I'm thinking. Help me"?

HARDY: Because it - it - it - it's gotta come from somewhere. It doesn't come from nothing. Do you know what I mean? Like, it's impossible for something to come from nothing. It wouldn't exist. Do you know what I mean? Like, this wood here comes from something.

DET MCADOO: Yeah.

HARDY: you know? And if - if it doesn't - how could it exist if it's -

DET MCADOO: No. I - I - no, I - - -

HARDY: Everything -

DET MCADOO: understand that. So - - -

HARDY: Yeah.

DET MCADOO: But you understand that people are there to - to try - to try and help you manage that - - -

HARDY: Yeah.

DET MCADOO: - - - but you haven't done that. And is there a reason for that?

HARDY: Because it went on for 20 years, I felt like there was nothing that anyone could do.

DET MCADOO: Okay.

1. Section 119(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires me, as a judge sitting alone, to apply so far as practicable, the same principles of law and procedure as would be applied in a trial before a jury.
2. Section 120(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires me to state the principles of law that I have applied and the findings of fact upon which I have relied.

1. I have applied the following general principles of law.
2. Mr Hardy is presumed to be innocent of the charge.
3. The burden of proving his guilt is on the State. The standard of proof required to be achieved is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Unless I am satisfied that each element of the offence has been proved to that standard, the accused must be acquitted.
4. I must not speculate about matters not in evidence or look for theories that are not supported by the evidence. My verdict must be based only on the evidence.
5. If it is necessary to draw inferences as to essential facts from the evidence, I am not permitted to draw an inference adverse to the accused unless that inference is the only reasonable one open on the evidence.
6. In assessing the evidence and reaching a verdict, it is necessary to guard against any feelings of prejudice or sympathy. Such feelings must be put aside, and the issue of whether Mr Hardy's guilt has been proved must be determined dispassionately and objectively.
7. I direct myself that it is dangerous to assess Mr Hardy's words and actions in testing his capacity to control his actions or to know that he ought not to do the act that resulted in the charge by the standards of people who do not suffer from a mental illness.
8. Mr Hardy did not give evidence. It was his right not to do so and no inference adverse to him can be drawn by reason of the fact that he chose not to give evidence.
9. While I am not bound to accept and act upon the expert evidence lead by the parties, where there is no evidence or circumstance to contradict that evidence, a verdict cannot be given that is contrary to that evidence.[80]

1. Section 27 of the Criminal Code is applicable in this trial. Mr Hardy's defence is that at the relevant time he suffered from treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia. Mr Hardy says that his schizophrenia deprived him of the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act which caused Mr Peasley's death.
2. Every person is presumed to be of sound mind until the contrary is proved.[81] Mr Hardy has the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that he was not of sound mind, that is that he is not criminally responsible pursuant to s 27 of the Criminal Code at the time that he did the act that is alleged to constitute the offence.[82]
3. Section 27 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

Insanity

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission on account of mental impairment if at the time of doing the act or making the omission he is in such a state of mental impairment as to deprive him of the capacity to understand what he is doing, or of capacity to control his actions, or of capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission.

(2) A person whose mind, at the time of his doing or omitting to do an act, is affected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of subsection (1), is criminally responsible for the act or omission to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was induced by the delusions to believe to exist.

1. Section 1(1) of the Criminal Code defines 'mental impairment' to mean intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility. The term 'mental illness' is defined as meaning:

An underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of short or long duration, and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition that results from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary stimuli.

1. The question of what constitutes mental illness is a question of law, and the question of whether or not the facts disclose a state of mental illness is a question of fact.[83]
2. In The State of Western Australia v Jones,[84] Jenkins J made the following observations regarding the definition of 'mental illness', with which I respectfully agree and adopt:

The definition of 'mental illness' reflects some of the comments made by King CJ in Radford about the meaning of the expression 'disease of the mind' which is used in the common law of insanity. Summarising the statement of King CJ:

1. 'Disease of the mind' is synonymous with 'mental illness';
2. A temporary disorder or disturbance of an otherwise healthy mind caused by external factors is not properly regarded as a disease of the mind;
3. Major mental illness or psychoses such as schizophrenia are clearly diseases of the mind as are physical diseases, such as psychomotor epilepsy and arteriosclerosis, when they affect the soundness of the mental faculties;
4. Disease of the mind is to be distinguished from 'mere excitability of a normal man, passion, even stupidity, obtuseness, lack of self-control and impulsiveness'; and
5. In order to constitute insanity in the eyes of the law the malfunction of the mental faculties 'must result from an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, be it of long or short duration and be it permanent or temporary, properly be termed mental illness, as distinct from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli'.

1. The capacity which Mr Hardy says he is deprived of by reason of his mental illness is the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act or make the omission. The meaning of this phrase was considered by the High Court in Stapleton v The Queen:[85]

A case of this description must turn very largely upon the jury's appreciation of what amounts to knowledge of the nature and quality of the act and of its wrongness. For it is evident that a jury although satisfied that no capacity existed in a particular accused to reason at all may think that at the back of it all was an awareness of the nature of the act and of the fact that other people might regard it as wrong more especially if that means regarded by the law as wrong. That would not lead to a conviction if the jury understands that, given a disease disorder or defect of reason, then it is enough if it so governed the faculties at the time of the commission of the act that the accused was incapable of reasoning with some moderate degree of calmness as to the wrongness of the act or of comprehending the nature or significance of the act of killing. See R v Davis (1881) 14 Cox CC 563, Stephen J, R v Kay (1904) 68 JP Jo 376, Stephen J. In R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182 at pp 189, 190, this was expressed by Dixon J as follows:

'The question is whether he was able to appreciate the wrongness of the particular act he was doing at the particular time. Could this man be said to know in this sense whether his act was wrong if through a disease or defect or disorder of the mind he could not think rationally of the reasons which to ordinary people make that act right or wrong? If through the disordered condition of the mind he could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure it may be said that he could not know that what he was doing was wrong.

1. The High Court also held that a direction to a jury that 'wrong' meant 'against the law' was in error. There is no requirement that the accused know the act is wrong in the sense of being contrary to law, but that rather it is a question of knowing right from wrong, good from evil, not legality from illegality.[86] The High Court went on to observe that in some cases this distinction may not be of much significance, but in others it may be.[87]
2. In Evans v The State of Western Australia,[88] the Court of Appeal considered the application of the common law principles to s 27 of the Criminal Code. McLure P stated that there was no suggestion that there was any material distinction between the common law test as stated by the High Court in Stapleton v The Queen and s 27 of the Criminal Code. McLure P went on to consider the term 'know' in s 27 of the Criminal Code and concluded:[89]

Thus the real issue for the jury in this case was whether the appellant had established on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the killing his mental impairment resulted in a complete incapacity to reason as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary standards. The term 'know' means 'understand', 'appreciate' or 'comprehend'. An incapacity to reason rationally as to what is right or wrong according to ordinary standards prevents a person from understanding that he (or she) ought not do the act. Knowledge (short of understanding) that to kill is punishable by law does not prevent such a finding. Nor is a finding of incapacity dependent upon proof of a positive belief in the rightness of the conduct. Whether an act is right or wrong is determined by reference to an objective standard. The question is whether the appellant had a complete incapacity to reason as to what was, by that objective standard, right or wrong.

1. Wheeler JA (with whom Owen JA agreed) held as follows:[90]

It is not easy to summarise the detailed discussion of authority in Stapleton in a way which is capable of being fashioned into an appropriate direction in every case of insanity. However, the principles extracted from that discussion appear to focus upon two issues. First, the ability to know that one 'ought not' to do an act or make an omission is a capacity to know that one 'ought not' to do it according to ordinary standards of right and wrong, rather than knowledge that the act is unlawful. As the High Court observed, from a practical point of view it often may not matter much, because in relation to serious offences the two ideas 'are not easily separable' (at 375). However, in cases where, as here, the distinction may arise, it should be made. The second principle is that the capacity which must be found to be lacking is not merely a capacity to appreciate, in some abstract sense, that others would view the act as wrong. Rather, it is a capacity of the particular accused either to discern the difference between moral good and evil, or to 'think rationally' of the reasons which would lead ordinary people to consider the act to be right or wrong.

1. Pursuant to s 279 of the Criminal Code, the elements of the offence of murder are:

(1) that Mr Hardy killed Mr Peasley;

(2) the killing was unlawful; and

(3) at the time Mr Hardy killed Mr Peasley, he intended to cause Mr Peasley's death or intended to cause him a bodily injury of such a nature as to endanger, or be likely to endanger, his life.

1. In relation to the first element, a person who causes the death of another, either directly or indirectly, is deemed to have killed that other person.[91]
2. Whether a killing constitutes the offence of murder depends upon the intention of the accused at the relevant time.
3. Mr Hardy has raised the defence of insanity. In circumstances where that defence has been raised it is necessary to consider whether the accused is criminally responsible for the killing, having regard to s 27 of the Criminal Code.

1. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hardy unlawfully killed Mr Peasley. I have found that Mr Hardy struck Mr Peasley's head with a hammer at least 15 times and that the head injury that Mr Peasley sustained caused his death. Mr Hardy had no lawful excuse for killing Mr Peasley and none was suggested.

1. The State called Dr Brett to give evidence and tendered a report that he had prepared dated 18 September 2024.[92]
2. Dr Brett has been a forensic psychiatrist for 27 years and has extensive experience reviewing people to consider whether they are mentally impaired for the purposes of s 27 of the Criminal Code.[93]
3. Dr Brett reviewed a large volume of material that he was provided with by the prosecution.[94] This included various witness statements that the police obtained during their investigation, and transcripts of Mr Hardy's two police interviews.[95] Dr Brett also reviewed Mr Hardy's medical records with his consent and spoke to Mr Hardy's father.[96]
4. Dr Brett has also been provided with a copy of the report prepared by Dr Tate.[97]
5. In addition to this, Dr Brett interviewed Mr Hardy at Bunbury Regional Prison on 23 January 2025.[98]
6. When Dr Brett interviewed Mr Hardy, Mr Hardy provided him with an account of his attack on Mr Peasley and the events leading up to that attack.[99]
7. Mr Hardy described his mental health deteriorating in the months before the offence and he described feeling tormented all of the time. Dr Brett referred to Mr Hardy's assault of Mr Sigey in August 2023 and noted that there appeared to be no logical explanation for that assault.[100]
8. Mr Hardy told Dr Brett that he found having schizophrenia 'fucking horrible' and said that the medication he was on was not working.[101]
9. Mr Hardy told Dr Brett that he received special messages from the television and from cars beeping their horns, and that he had to act on them at times. Dr Brett thought that Mr Hardy was describing auditory hallucinations which were commands. He asked Mr Hardy whether God was speaking to him and thought that Mr Hardy became quite guarded in response.[102]
10. Mr Hardy said to Dr Brett that his living situation with Mr Peasley became stressful. He told Dr Brett that Mr Peasley threatened him and that Mr Peasley asked Mr Hardy to kill him. Mr Hardy said that he received text messages about this and described feeling tormented and not being able to think clearly.[103]
11. Mr Hardy told Dr Brett that he believed that people were coming into his room at night and sexually assaulting him. Mr Hardy said that he knew this because his 'arse' was painful and wet. He told Dr Brett that he was not sure who was assaulting him but he described an overall targeted campaign against him by a number of people and he believed Mr Peasley had coordinated this.[104]
12. Mr Hardy told Dr Brett that he stole the hammer from Bunnings for his own protection. He said that his abusers would know he had the hammer and he hoped they would stop but they did not and he continued to be abused.[105]
13. Mr Hardy told Dr Brett that a few days before he killed Mr Peasley he went to Bluff Knoll with the intention of killing himself. He described reaching the summit as an evangelical moment and he felt like he was on cloud nine.[106]
14. Mr Hardy said that when he returned home things got worse. He said that his experiences intensified and he did not know what to do. He told Dr Brett that he struggled to understand reality and spoke in philosophical terms. He believed that his actions were always going to happen, and he described not being in control of his reality.[107]
15. Dr Brett reviewed and considered information about Mr Hardy's mental health in the period leading up to the attack[108] and the witness statements provided to him.[109]
16. Dr Brett also considered Mr Hardy's police interviews.[110]
17. Dr Brett observed that during the first interview, Mr Hardy demonstrated impaired logic, the belief that he was being interfered with at night, that Mr Peasley was instrumental in this, that he was being tormented, and that he did not feel safe. Dr Brett thought that this was consistent with a man who had poorly controlled psychosis.[111] He thought that the second interview was consistent with the first, and that there was good evidence of psychosis.[112]
18. Dr Brett considered Mr Hardy's psychiatric history,[113] his past medical history,[114] his substance abuse history,[115] the medication he has taken,[116] his family history,[117] and his personal history.[118]
19. With regard to Mr Hardy's personal history, Mr Hardy told Dr Brett that at one point he ran his own business as a tiler but as his mental health declined, he was in and out of hospital and his affairs ultimately became managed by a guardian and the Public Trustee. He said that he then received a disability support pension and lived in supported accommodation.[119]
20. Dr Brett conducted a mental state examination.[120]
21. Dr Brett diagnosed Mr Hardy as suffering from treatment resistant chronic schizophrenia. He also considered that Mr Hardy suffered from historical substance abuse.[121]
22. Dr Brett thought that Mr Hardy had a severe and brittle form of schizophrenia.[122] He explained that brittle in this context means that Mr Hardy was very vulnerable to relapse.[123]
23. Dr Brett thought that at the time that Mr Hardy attacked Mr Peasley, he had a mental impairment (as that term is defined in the Criminal Code), namely the mental illness schizophrenia.[124] He thought that at the time Mr Hardy attacked Mr Peasley, Mr Hardy was acutely unwell and was experiencing his typical relapse signature.[125]
24. Dr Brett considered that at the time Mr Hardy attacked Mr Peasley, Mr Hardy had the capacity to know what he was doing and that he understood that he was hitting Mr Peasley with a hammer.[126]
25. Dr Brett's opinion was that at the time Mr Hardy attacked Mr Peasley, Mr Hardy had the capacity to control his actions. Dr Brett observed that Mr Hardy had obtained a hammer for his own protection and it did not appear to be an impulsive act.[127]
26. Dr Brett thought, however, that at the time Mr Hardy attacked Mr Peasley, Mr Hardy was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act. He expressed the opinion that Mr Hardy's psychosis was so severe he could not reason properly and was acting on his own delusional beliefs that were exacerbated by his auditory command hallucinations.[128]
27. Dr Brett said that Mr Hardy thought that Mr Peasley was harming him, and he had little choice but to harm Mr Peasley. Dr Brett said that Mr Hardy believed that the situation had gotten out of hand and it was 'him or me', and he did not believe that he had an option. Dr Brett thought that Mr Hardy was severely unwell.[129]

1. Dr Tate is a consultant forensic psychiatrist and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of Western Australia.
2. She has been a consultant forensic psychiatrist for about 11 years, and she is currently employed by the Frankland Centre which is Western Australia's only high security forensic unit.[130]
3. Like Dr Brett, Dr Tate reviewed records that were provided to her, including various witness statements, reviewed some of Mr Hardy's medical records and spoke with his father on the telephone.[131] She was not, however, provided with Mr Hardy's police interviews.[132]
4. Like Dr Brett, Dr Tate also interviewed Mr Hardy. She interviewed him on 23 August 2024 at Hakea Prison for about 90 minutes.[133]
5. The account that Mr Hardy gave to Dr Tate is broadly consistent with that given to Dr Brett, although perhaps more detailed in some respects.[134]
6. Mr Hardy told Dr Tate that Mr Peasley would threaten to kill him and his family, and asked Mr Hardy to kill him.[135]
7. Mr Hardy told Dr Tate that he began experiencing strange things that he attributed to Mr Peasley and other people. He said this involved him being sexually assaulted and suffocated in his sleep, and that other people must have been involved.[136]
8. Mr Hardy told Dr Tate that he could not talk to staff because he was not sure who he could trust, and he could not speak to his family in case they were hurt. Mr Hardy said that he became depressed and considered suicide, and went to Bluff Knoll to kill himself but heard people calling his name and felt being pulled back.[137]
9. Mr Hardy said that on his return he decided to take matters into his own hands. He said that he was hearing voices at the time, one of whom he thought was God. He was reluctant to discuss whether God had told him to hurt Mr Peasley as he did not want to get into more trouble, and other people did not want him to say.[138]
10. Mr Hardy told Dr Tate that he hit Mr Peasley in the head with a hammer.[139] He said that he believed God, or some other entity, had made it happen.[140]
11. Dr Tate considered Mr Hardy's psychiatric history,[141] his medical history,[142] his personal history,[143] his family psychiatric history,[144] his substance use history,[145] and his forensic history.[146]
12. Dr Tate also conducted a mental state examination.[147]
13. Dr Tate diagnosed Mr Hardy as suffering from treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia and a substance use disorder (currently in remission in a protected environment).[148]
14. Dr Tate said that Mr Hardy told her that he was hearing God commanding him to assault Mr Peasley at the time of the incident. She said that Mr Hardy had poor insight into his illness and was unable to identify hallucinations as such, and instead he believed that the things he experienced were real. She thought that it is likely that Mr Hardy was hearing voices instructing him to assault Mr Peasley at the time of the incident and responded to these as if they were real.[149]
15. Dr Tate said that Mr Hardy's illness featured persecutory and referential delusions (false beliefs that random occurrences have particular meaning or directly relate to oneself). She believed that he was experiencing specific delusions relating to Mr Peasley at the time of the incident.[150]
16. Dr Tate observed that Mr Hardy seemed to believe that Mr Peasley had somehow arranged to move in to persecute him, and was involved in a conspiracy involving others to sexually assault and otherwise harm him. She said that he implied this conspiracy may have involved staff members, which might help to explain why he assaulted a staff member in the weeks before in an apparently unprovoked incident. She noted that Mr Hardy also implied that he was not able to fully trust his family and may not have been fully frank with them as a result.[151]
17. Dr Tate thought that Mr Hardy knew what he was doing when he used the hammer to assault Mr Peasley, although she did not think that he meant to kill him. She believed that Mr Hardy was not deprived of the capacity to know what he was doing.[152]
18. Dr Tate considered that on the evidence available to her, Mr Hardy was in control of his actions when he assaulted Mr Peasley. She did not believe that he was deprived of his capacity to control his actions.[153]
19. Like Dr Brett, however, Dr Tate thought that Mr Hardy was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not attack Mr Peasley. She said that Mr Hardy believed, as a result of his paranoid illness, that Mr Peasley was intending to harm him, and he had reached a point of desperation where he thought it was 'him or me'. She considered that Mr Hardy was deprived of the capacity to know he ought not do the act because he was acting in response to paranoid and persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations he believed to be real.[154]

Whether Mr Hardy was mentally impaired at the time he unlawfully killed Mr Peasley

1. I have already found that Mr Hardy has treatment resistant paranoid schizophrenia.
2. As I have discussed above, Dr Brett and Dr Tate each concluded that Mr Hardy was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time he assaulted Mr Peasley.
3. I found both Dr Brett and Dr Tate to be well qualified and impressive witnesses. Their evidence was unchallenged and I found it to be cogent and persuasive.
4. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that Mr Hardy was mentally impaired at the time that he unlawfully killed Mr Peasley.

Whether Mr Hardy was deprived of one of the capacities in s 27 of the Criminal Code

1. Again, both Dr Brett and Dr Tate agreed that to be the case, for the reasons I have discussed above in detail. I found their evidence in this regard to be cogent and persuasive. I am satisfied that it is more likely than not that at the time Mr Hardy attacked Mr Peasley, he was deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act.

Verdict: Mr Hardy is not guilty on account of mental impairment

1. I find Mr Hardy not guilty of the murder of Mr Peasley on account of mental impairment.

1. While the identification of a specific intention can be difficult in cases where the accused was suffering from a mental impairment at the relevant time, there are nevertheless cases in which it is possible to reach a positive conclusion as to intention, notwithstanding that it is the product of a delusion. In The State of Western Australia v McCullock [No 2],[155] the Chief Justice observed that where there is reliable evidence to support a finding of an intention to kill (albeit an intention that was the result of a delusion caused by a mental impairment) it may be appropriate for the trial judge to make specific findings in relation to those issues.
2. In this case, that nature of Mr Hardy's attack on Mr Peasley suggests that he intended to kill Mr Peasley. He hit Mr Peasley in the head using mostly the bladed end of the hammer, at least 15 times, employing considerable force. He continued hitting Mr Peasley after he fell on the floor. Such an attack seems designed to kill.
3. Dr Tate thought that Mr Hardy may not have meant to kill Mr Peasley, however.
4. In my view, any reasonable doubt about Mr Hardy's intention is removed by the admissions that he made to the police. He admitted that he attacked Mr Peasley because he wanted to 'end him'. He also admitted that he used the bladed end of the hammer as he wanted to end Mr Peasley quickly.
5. Dr Tate was not provided with the police interviews in which Mr Hardy made these admissions, and I attach less weight to her opinion about his intention as a result.
6. Ultimately, I consider that the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Hardy intended to kill Mr Peasley, although that intention was the result of a delusion caused by his paranoid schizophrenia.

What is the appropriate order to make under the Criminal Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023? Should a custody order be made?

1. Given my verdict, it is necessary for me to make an order in relation to Mr Hardy under pt 5 of the CLMI Act.[156]
2. In accordance with s 46(1) and s 46(2)(a) of the CLMI Act, as the offence of murder is a serious offence, I must make a custody order in respect of Mr Hardy unless I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any risk that he appears to present to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.
3. In my view, there is a risk that Mr Hardy might attack another person in the community, in the same way he attacked Mr Peasley, unless a custody order is made.
4. Neither party submitted that the risk that Mr Hardy posed could be adequately managed by a community supervision order. Nor was any evidence led to suggest how the risk posed could be managed by such an order. Mr Hardy's counsel conceded that a custody order was appropriate. In my view, that concession was properly made.
5. Mr Hardy was being managed in the community under a community treatment order when he attacked and killed Mr Peasley. Although he was in daily contact with his carers, he felt unable to confide in them and felt that he must take matters into his own hands by killing Mr Peasley.
6. I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that it is more likely than not that the risk Mr Hardy presents to the safety of the community can be adequately managed under a community supervision order.

1. In accordance with s 50 of the CLMI Act, when making a custody order, I am required to set a limiting term for the custody order as follows:

(2) If a court makes a custody order, the court must set a limiting term for the order, being the best estimate of the term of imprisonment or term of detention that the court would, in all the circumstances, have imposed if -

(a) the court were sentencing the person for the offence; and

(b) any mental impairment of the person were not taken into account.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the court must assume that -

(a) the person had pleaded guilty to the charge at the earliest opportunity; and

(b) there is no other option but to impose a term of imprisonment or term of detention.

(4) The limiting term commences on the day on which the order is made unless the court, after taking into account any time that the person has already spent in custody in relation to the offence, orders that the term be taken to have commenced on an earlier day.

1. The penalty for the offence of murder is contained in s 279(4) of the Criminal Code which states as follows:

(4) A person, other than a child, who is guilty of murder must be sentenced to life imprisonment unless -

(a) that sentence would be clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person; and

(b) the person is unlikely to be a threat to the safety of the community when released from imprisonment,

in which case, subject to subsection (5A), the person is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.

1. The requirements of s 50 of the CLMI Act in the context of the offence of murder were considered by Quinlan CJ in The State of Western Australia v Chokolich.[157] I respectfully adopt and apply the principles set out by the Chief Justice which may relevantly be summarised as follows:

(a) that I am required to determine the 'best estimate' of the term of imprisonment that a court 'would, in all the circumstances' have imposed based on certain assumptions. This task is necessarily a hypothetical exercise;[158]

(b) the use of the word 'would' signifies that I am required to 'stand in the shoes' of a hypothetical sentencing court and apply the relevant principles contained in the Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), including in s 6 of that Act, in light of ordinary sentencing principles;[159]

(c) one of the assumptions imposed by s 50 of the CLMI Act is that in setting the limiting term, I am not to take into account Mr Hardy's mental impairment. That assumption may be relevant to the circumstances of the offence, mitigatory factors and potential facts that might have resulted in a longer term of imprisonment;[160]

(d) the other assumptions imposed by s 50 of the CLMI Act are that I must assume that Mr Hardy has pleaded guilty to the charge of murder at the earliest opportunity.[161] I must also assume that there is no other option but to impose a term of imprisonment;

(e) subject to the exceptional circumstances identified in s 279(4)(a) and s 279(4)(b) of the Criminal Code, the sentence of life imprisonment for murder is a mandatory sentence. Therefore, on its proper construction, s 50 of the CLMI Act requires that if, on the assumptions required by that section, the mandatory term of life imprisonment would have been imposed, then the limiting term must be set as the duration of that mandatory term;[162]

(f) given the exceptional nature of a sentence other than life imprisonment for murder generally, the circumstances in which a limiting term on a charge of murder will be set as a term other than the duration of the person's life will be equally exceptional. This is particularly the case given the statutory requirement to exclude from consideration the accused's mental impairment. This is because an accused's mental impairment at the time of committing an offence might otherwise have been the principal reason for concluding that it would have been 'clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person' to have imposed a sentence of life imprisonment;[163] and

(g) where the court's 'best estimate' of the sentence that the sentencing court would have imposed is life imprisonment, s 50 of the CLMI Act does not permit, or require, the court to determine the minimum non-parole period that would have been set if the person had been sentenced to life imprisonment.[164]

1. Mr Hardy's counsel conceded that the appropriate limiting term is life. In my view, that concession was properly made.
2. I consider that if Mr Hardy had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, and the court sentencing him did not take into account his mental impairment, he would have received a sentence of life imprisonment.
3. Mr Hardy's assault on Mr Peasley was unprovoked, brutal, sustained, and involved considerable force. Mr Peasley was awake when Mr Hardy attacked him, and Mr Peasley would have been terrified.
4. If Mr Hardy was criminally responsible for his actions, the seriousness of the offending would require a term of life imprisonment. The relevant mitigating factors: the assumed early guilty plea, Mr Hardy's limited criminal record and his cooperation with the police, would have little effect on the appropriate sentence given the seriousness of his offending. I am satisfied that there would have been no basis to conclude that it would have been 'clearly unjust given the circumstances of the offence and the person' to impose a term of life imprisonment.
5. I am therefore satisfied that the best estimate of the term of imprisonment that the court would, in all the circumstances, have imposed based on the assumptions outlined in s 50 of the CLMI Act is a term of life imprisonment. I set the limiting term of Mr Hardy's custody order as the duration of Mr Hardy's life. That limiting term is to commence on the date Mr Hardy was taken into custody, being 20 October 2023.

Statements made by Mr Hardy on 21 October 2023[165]

• I am a tiler by trade;
• I spoke with a lawyer the night before;'
• I was getting a lot of torment and some medication that wasn't really helping me with my problems. I was taking a lot of medication;
• I didn't really have an option you know;
• Mr Peasley was intimidating and tormenting me. He wasn't a very stable kid in his mind as well;
• I shouldn't have assaulted him;
• I lashed out at him;
• he was in his bedroom awake and laying on the bed;
• I lashed out at him with a hammer;
• I hit him over the head about 10 times with a hammer I held in my right hand;
• I got the hammer from Bunnings last week on Monday;
• this was meant to happen...things were put in place;
• Jonno tormented me for about 8 months;
• some people are dripping taps;
• I was very compliant with Jonno;
• I was just keeping that medication, too much medication that had a side effect;
• I like Jonno;
• I was just doing what I had to do;
• For myself and for other people;
• I moved into [the house] eight months ago;
• I had been there) about three weeks and then he moved in and my head just went haywire;
• I went through torment from Johnathon like radically laughing, waking me up in the morning, drink my water, call me a [indistinct], chucking wobbles and fits and that;
• it was good then being by myself;
• I like Jonno and thought he was an all right bloke;
• I had met him prior on Moylan Way when I was very very young probably about 28 years ago when I was five;
• the trauma started after riding on the circus at the Perth Royal Show when I was about 4 years old and ever since my life's just been hell;
• I met Jonno in Busselton. I know his mum;
• they lived on Moylan Way;
• I was a bit of like the reject kid back at school. I never had a lot of friends. All because I went on a stupid fucking ride;
• I found Jonno difficult to live with;
• I went to Bunnings last Monday to get a hammer because of a build up of everything;
• I bought the hammer for protection because people were coming in my room at nighttime and doing things in my room while I was asleep and things went missing;
• I felt something when I was asleep. I really don't want to talk about it;
• I thought I'm going to get a hammer just for my own protection because I was a bit worried about people coming in my room while I was asleep;
• I felt like something was in my arse. I couldn't wake up. It wasn't a dream;
• this happened four weeks ago. I didn't tell anyone;
• I didn't pay for the hammer;
• I think he was doing some things on purpose. Everything was fine for 3 weeks. And then he did a lot of mixed things, sending me death threats on my phone through a text message;
• I haven't had my phone for three weeks as I left it in the car;
• those death threats gave me more reason to buy a hammer) and things that were going on in the house for protection;
• I just shove medications down my throat every morning without no reason. It makes me psychotic;
• that morning I woke up about 9, 8, took my pills, had a shower, a coffee and a smoke. Jonno was in the lounge room and drinking a cask in the morning;
• there were a lot of things going on in my head that morning. I was getting messages form the TV towards me that I could see and hear just saying things relating to me;
• not telling me what to do, more torment;
• I last saw Community Mental Health in Bunbury about a week ago;
• I don't touch methamphetamine, I don't smoke weed, I don't drink alcohol, I don't drink whiskey, I don't take heroin, I don't take narcotics. The only thing I do is smoke cigarettes and take medication;
• I have schizophrenia apparently;
• that day I went for a smoke out the back on the patio near the back gate, I was sitting on chairs;
• no (there was not anything different happening this day that I was aware of);
• when I brought the hammer home from Bunnings) I put it in the shed and the next day I moved it the shrubs;
• and yesterday I got it out of the shrubs;
• the hammer was not in my room) because I was seeing what their motivation was - Jonno's and some of the staff as well;
• Jonno knew a lot about my family;
• I got the hammer. I wanted them to know that I had the hammer which they knew I did get the hammer. I went to bed so that night then I could see what their motivation was;
• them are my care workers;
• I was worried that the care workers and Jonno were going into my room):
• I did not tell anyone that I had a hammer);
• the hammer was in the shed) fairly visible behind the door;
• the movies were on the shelf against the wall and the hammer was behind the door. I just wanted to see his motivation (when he saw the hammer);
• I left it in the shed for a couple of days;
• it really wasn't my intention (to hit Jonno with the hammer);
• it's never the right thing to hurt somebody but sometimes bad things happen for the right things to happen;
• what made me get up and get that hammer) just being bullied all my life, rejected as a kid. (I was sick of it) mentally;
• when I got to his room there were no arguments or conversation, or had been earlier in the day);
• what happened after that first time I hit him that made me hit him again) because I lost everything (in my personal life), friends, family, job;
• I wasn't angry;
• I just walked up to him (with the hammer) under a black and white coloured towel in my hand;
• Jonno was asleep but awake;
• Mr Peasley eyes closed and was laying on the bed. I then just hit him;
• I don't know (what my intention was for the repeated strikes);
• I didn't feel anything (when I was hitting him). Yes (I remember doing it though);
• (Shown a photo of the hammer (at BP 9.142)) Yes (this is the hammer that I stole from Bunnings);
• both sides (I used to hit the deceased);
• I left it at the crime scene;
• I then went out the back gate;
• I just went for a walk to a construction site about a couple of hundred metres away (from my house);
• (at the construction site) I just sat there. Just thinking about stuff, about this is unbelievable this has happened;
• no (I did not try and conceal or hide the hammer);
• no one deserves that (to get hit in the head 10 times with a hammer);
• I never wanted any of this to happen;
• I was thinking that I'm innocent (when I was doing it);
• yes (I was worried about the deceased);
• I didn't plan it;
• the deceased pretty much (stayed where he was each time I struck him in the head);
• I'm not proud of it;
• I haven't wanted any of this stuff;
• I didn't want any of this to happen;
• (under the tap I washed) the hammer. Just on the handle. I don't know (why I cleaned the hammer);
• it wasn't a thought-out process. I didn't plan it.

Statements made by Mr Hardy on 24 October 2023[166]

• (when asked if there was anything he wanted to clarify that might be different from the first interview) It's basically all the same. I just apologise to the family;
• (the deceased's position on the bed) He was lying on his left-hand side. Facing towards the bathroom. More to the middle of the bed;
• he was asleep but he was awake at the same time;
• (when I first hit him with the hammer) I was on top of the bed;
• (standing up). One foot left and one foot back. (The deceased was) to the right;
• (the hammer) was in my right hand and I picked it up from out the back patio;
• I just hit him. Pretty hard. Just used my right hand;
• I did get off the bed. (And continued the assault). The deceased moved off the bed. Went onto the ground; I was just hitting him and he rolled off the bed;
• I didn't hit him on the face or anything like that. It was just on the back of the head. He was on the ground while I hit him. I hit him probably about nine times. Probably the sixth time he was on the ground. And then he just laid there on the ground;
• (while the deceased was on the bed before he rolled onto the ground I hit him) Six times;
• (when the deceased was on the ground I hit him) Three times;
• I was trying to end him;
• I just thought I had to do it;
• because I just felt like I had to. End his life sort of thing;
• (I started thinking that that had to be done) The time it happened;
• I kinda was going to for a couple of hours;
• the first time I went into his room I tripped on some movies and I walked back out. And then went back in about 10 minutes later;
• (I then went) Just back outside. Sit outside. Smoking ciggies. And then I just went back in;
• (the first time I went in I had with me) The hammer;
• it was probably about 15 - 20 minutes (that I was outside and before I went back in). I was assessing the situation a bit;
• the first time he was just like (VOCALISES) and then the second time I went in he didn't say anything. He didn't do anything. (The second time I stood on the bed) for probably about 20 minutes. I was just contemplating a bit. I kind of just made my mind up and did it. I assessed it like for about 20 minutes. From when I went in the first time and come back out and went back in. I gave him 20 minutes;
• (I used) the pointy bit. The sharp bit (side of the hammer);
• I thought I'd just try to end him quickly. I didn't want to sit there for 2 hours;
• I assessed the situation for 8 months. I didn't tell anyone. I just contemplated to myself a few times;
• I did not threaten him;
• the reason why I did this is because I was receiving messages from movie, interpreting it in a different language;
• everything was going so well when I was living there by myself and I had support workers come in, and then Jonno just come walking through the door and everything changed;
• I just washed the blood off my hands;
• I left the hammer there (and not trying to stop the police from getting evidence).

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

[1] The State of Western Australia v Hardy [2025] WASC 249.

[69] Exhibit 1, par 93. See also Exhibits 3 and 13.

[80] Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138 [124]

[82] R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182.

[83] R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30, 60.

[84] The State of Western Australia v Jones [2018] WASC 395 [43].

[85] Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358, 367.

[88] Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34 (Evans).

[99] Exhibit 6, pages 2 - 4, pars 3 - 16.

[107] Exhibit 6, page 4, pars 14 - 15.

[108] Exhibit 6, pages 2 - 5, pars 17 - 27.

[109] Exhibit 6, pages 5 - 7, pars 28 - 37.

[110] Exhibit 6, pages 7 - 8, pars 38 - 48.

[113] Exhibit 6, pages 8-14, pars 49 - 90.

[115] Exhibit 6, page 15, pars 92 - 102.

[116] Exhibit 6, page 16, pars 103 - 104.

[117] Exhibit 6, page 16, pars 105 - 106.

[118] Exhibit 6, pages 16 - 17, pars 107 - 112.

[119] Exhibit 6, page 17, pars 110 and 112.

[120] Exhibit 6, page 17, pars 113 - 115.

[121] Exhibit 6, page 18, pars 116 - 117.

[131] Exhibit 7, pages 5 - 8, pars 25 - 47.

[134] Exhibit 7, pages 2 - 5, pars 5 - 24.

[137] Exhibit 7, page 3, pars 12 - 13.

[141] Exhibit 7, pages 8 - 11, pars 48 - 67.

[143] Exhibit 7, pages 12 - 13, pars 69 - 83.

[144] Exhibit 7, page 13, pars 84 - 85.

[145] Exhibit 7, page 14, pars 86 - 89.

[146] Exhibit 7, page 14, pars 90 - 95.

[147] Exhibit 7, pages 14 - 15, pars 96 - 102.

[155] The State of Western Australia v McCullock [No 2] [2024] WASC 400 [134]-[136].

[156] Criminal Procedure Act s 149(1); CLMI Act s 44(1).

[157] The State of Western Australia v Chokolich [2024] WASC 346 (Chokolich), [60] - [99].