Page:R v Stein (2024, NSWSC).pdf/28

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

by a health professional, and it manifested at a time when the offender, who had by then been questioned about Charlise's whereabouts for some hours by police, must have realised that he was suspected of having done her some harm. There is every possibility that the offender feigned psychosis, for such benefit as he perceived there to be in that pretence. It is not reliable as evidence of mental illness.

93 The only thing that can be comfortably concluded about the offender's mental health is that he has a substance use disorder. An individual's decision to use illicit drugs does not mitigate his offence or call for a reduction in sentence.

94 The offender claimed to Dr Neilssen that he began using drugs to alleviate the symptoms of mental illness and to help him deal with trauma. There is no evidence beyond his hearsay report of the abuse he claims to have suffered. The offender first made an assertion of having been sexually abused as a child when he was facing sentence for a serious Federal offence; he has repeated it now when he faces sentence for a very serious State offence. There is no independent evidence to support his claims. The offender has not nominated his purported abuser, and nor has he made a complaint to police. He did not give evidence of it and submit to cross-examination. Bearing in mind the offender's proven capacity to lie and lie extravagantly if he perceives it to be in his interests – to his mother, to his fiancée, to police,[1] to Corrective Services,[2] and to a jury and this Court – I do not accept his self-reports of childhood trauma or mental illness as mitigating his offence.

95 The offender himself accepts through his counsel that his moral culpability is undiminished by these features.

96 Ex. S2 and the offender's assertions as to the conditions of his custody are relied upon to demonstrate that the offender faces a custodial environment that is harsher than for most prisoners and which will remain so. The offender is presently held on protection and ordinary experience suggests that he is likely to have lesser access to facilities currently than mainstream prisoners, and is at a disadvantage. Beyond that, I am not able to reach any conclusions about the offender's custodial conditions, and it would be no more than speculation to


  1. Exs. K and L.
  2. Evidence of Stacey Sweeney and Ryan Taylor, 21 May 2024.