Search for a case
Browse for a case
… by year
… by category
Delaney v R [2025] NSWCCA 76
The Court of Criminal Appeal has held that for the purposes of the definition of ‘mental health impairment’, the mere presence or absence of drug use at around the time is not decisive. The real question is whether any mental health impairment is caused solely by whatever drugs are present in the ac
R v Skapik [2025] NSWCCA 19
In this decision the CCA has held that the Commonwealth summary mental health diversion provisions are not limited to acute and serious mental health conditions such as might see a person be involuntarily detained. The concept of ‘mental illness’ in this context is broader and provides a measure of
RC v Director of Public Prosecutions [2024] NSWCCA 95
With a large number of historical sexual offences now coming before the courts, the prospects of physical and cognitive impairments for defendants has become an increasing feature of trials. In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal (‘CCA’) examined the so-called ‘common humanity’ test, noting t
Masters v R [2022] NSWCCA 228
In this decision the Court of Criminal Appeal has examined the level of capacity required in order to establish the mental illness defence. Although it was considered in the context of now-repealed legislation, it considers the test under the current Act as well, and concludes in part that there is
R v Stonestreet [2020] NSWCCA 212
The last several years have seen an increase in the focus on reduced ‘moral culpability’ as a result of mental illness as a mitigating factor on sentence. However, in this appeal, the CCA has reminded us that in some cases there is a flip side: sometimes, mental illness will indicate an increased ne
Jones and Anor v Booth and Anor [2019] NSWSC 1066
In comments made in the context of applications under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, but which are relevant to any case where there is expert evidence of mental illness, the Supreme Court has commented on the circumstances in which it will be appropriate to have a psychologist
Fang v R [2018] NSWCCA 210
The CCA has unanimously held that, at least on the evidence in this case, a drug-induced psychosis may not, on its own, meet the common law test for the defence of mental illness – although the Court also appears to have left the door open to reconsider the issue in a case where there is appropriate
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Saunders [2017] NSWSC 760
The Supreme Court has held that where an offender seeks to be diverted under s32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), and the order is for discharge into the care of a person, or requiring attendance on a particular place or person, the orders must specify that particular