The case examined the mental competence of the defendant, who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia
The SA Supreme Court recently set a limiting term of 10 years, 7 months, and 15 days for a defendant in an attempted murder case after ruling that the defendant was liable to supervision due to mental illness under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA).
In R v Murphy [2024] SASC 5, defendant Scott James Murphy faced charges of attempted murder under the CLCA. The case unfolded with an investigation into his mental competence. The SA Supreme Court found on the balance of probabilities that Murphy, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and associated psychotic illness, was mentally impaired at the time of the offence. Although the objective elements of the crime were established, the court deemed him mentally incompetent and declared that he was not guilty as a result.
Murphy was charged with attempted murder after targeting the victim at his workplace. Murphy launched an unprovoked attack while armed with cable ties and a knife, threatening the victim's life and causing the victim emotional distress.
A report by several experts delved into Murphy’s mental condition, highlighting a 25-year history of schizophrenia for which he had obtained limited treatment. At the time the report was put together, he was continuing to present with psychotic symptoms of thought disorder, delusions and hallucinations despite trials of different antipsychotic medications.
The experts also noted the circumstances of the offending and the fact that when he was arrested shortly after the incident, Murphy was voicing paranoid and persecutory ideas about paedophiles, "The Family", and government conspiracies. Despite receiving psychiatric care, his condition showed minimal improvement. The experts determined that Murphy required ongoing detention at James Nash House, where he received assessments and treatments for his mental illness. The experts deemed Murphy unsuitable to reside in the community.
The court noted that it was necessary to fix a limiting term by reference to the head sentence that would have been appropriate if Murphy had been convicted of the offence for which the objective elements had been established. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for life.
Operating within the statutory framework of the CLCA, the court considered all relevant factors in determining the limiting term. Section 269O(2) mandates fixing a term equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision appropriate if the defendant were convicted. The court must disregard matters based on the defendant's mental impairment and consider specified factors outlined in s. 269T(1) of the CLCA.
Delving into Murphy’s circumstances, the court noted his age, unemployment, familial relationships, and history of untreated psychosis. The court noted that the experts' assessment emphasised Murphy’s continued display of persecutory delusions, auditory hallucinations, and an ongoing risk of violent offending.
The court, considering the severity of the offence and the impact on the victim, established a starting point of 12 years for the limiting term but eventually reduced it to account for time spent in custody.
