R v Yilin Liu

1. [1]

   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.

2. [2]

   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.

3. [3]

   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.

4. [4]

   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.

5. [5]

   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.

Legal principles

1. [6]

   The test to be applied, according to White, is whether the interests of justice require that Mr Liu be given leave to withdraw his guilty plea. The Court in White stated a non-exhaustive list of relevant factors affecting the interests of justice:

The allegation

1. [7]

   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.

2. [8]

   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.

3. [9]

   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.

4. [10]

   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).

Procedural history

1. [11]

   On 29 March 2022 Mr Liu was arrested and placed into custody.

2. [12]

   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.

3. [13]

   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.

4. [14]

   In January 2025 Mr Liu’s new solicitor applied to vacate his sentence hearing fixed for 7 February 2025.

5. [15]

   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.

The circumstances in which the plea was entered

1. [16]

   In his affidavit Mr Liu said that he signed the facts admitted for sentencing, which included a copy translated into Mandarin.

2. [17]

   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”.

3. [18]

   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.

4. [19]

   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:

5. [20]

   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.

6. [21]

   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.

Mr Liu’s mental condition

1. [22]

   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.

2. [23]

   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.

3. [24]

   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.

4. [25]

   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.

The evidence about Mr Liu’s mental health

1. [26]

   I was provided with Mr Liu’s Justice Health records, and I have considered them. Each of the psychiatrists reviewed those records and commented on them to varying extents in their reports. Each of counsel for Mr Liu and the Crown focussed on parts of those records in their submissions.

Mr Liu’s affidavit

1. [27]

   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.

2. [28]

   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.

3. [29]

   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.

4. [30]

   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.

5. [31]

   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.

Evidence of Xiaoxia Guo

1. [32]

   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.

2. [33]

   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.

3. [34]

   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”.

4. [35]

   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.

5. [36]

   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.

6. [37]

   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.

7. [38]

   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.

Reports of Dr Olav Nielssen

1. [39]

   Mr Liu relies on two reports from Dr Olav Nielssen, psychiatrist, dated 22 February 2025 and 15 April 2025.

2. [40]

   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.

3. [41]

   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.

4. [42]

   In his first report Dr Nielssen set out the history he obtained from Mr Liu, which included the following:

5. [43]

   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.

6. [44]

   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.

7. [45]

   In his review of Mr Liu’s Justice Health records Dr Nielssen noted the following:

8. [46]

   Dr Nielssen noted the letter from Shenyang City An Ning Hospital dated 17 July 2016 and its contents.

9. [47]

   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.

10. [48]

    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.

11. [49]

    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.

12. [50]

    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.

13. [51]

    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:

14. [52]

    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.

15. [53]

    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.

Report of Dr Richard Furst

1. [54]

   Dr Richard Furst prepared a report dated 20 December 2023, for which he interviewed Mr Liu on 5 December 2023 for approximately 70 minutes with the assistance of an interpreter. Dr Furst noted that Mr Liu was in the MHSU and had seen a psychiatrist and mental health nurses in the unit regularly and was prescribed two types of psychotropic medication, an antipsychotic and an antidepressant. Mr Liu reported to Dr Furst hearing voices and people trying to indicate something by the TV. When asked about the connection of the deceased, Mr Wong, to his “claimed” symptoms, Mr Liu said they were connected:

2. [55]

   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.”

3. [56]

   Dr Furst had reviewed the Crown Case Statement. He also reviewed Mr Liu’s Justice Health records. His summary of them included the following:

4. [57]

   Dr Furst said:

5. [58]

   Dr Furst said:

6. [59]

   Dr Furst said:

7. [60]

   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.

8. [61]

   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.

9. [62]

   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.

10. [63]

    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.

11. [64]

    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.

Reports of Dr Adam Martin

1. [65]

   Dr Martin prepared two reports, one dated 26 August 2025 and a supplementary report of 9 October 2025.

2. [66]

   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.

3. [67]

   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.

4. [68]

   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.

5. [69]

   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.

6. [70]

   Dr Martin said that when he examined Mr Liu on 30 July 2025:

7. [71]

   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.

8. [72]

   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.

9. [73]

   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.

10. [74]

    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”.

11. [75]

    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.

12. [76]

    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.

13. [77]

    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.

14. [78]

    He reviewed the transcriptions of the electronic surveillance. He said:

15. [79]

    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.

16. [80]

    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.

17. [81]

    Dr Martin stated:

18. [82]

    On the issues of criminal responsibility and the defences of mental health impairment and substantial impairment, Dr Martin said:

19. [83]

    In his supplementary report of 9 October 2025 Dr Martin stated that he had reviewed the reports of Dr Furst and Dr Nielssen. He said:

The applicant’s submissions

1. [84]

   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.

2. [85]

   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.

3. [86]

   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.

4. [87]

   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.

5. [88]

   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.

6. [89]

   Counsel submitted:

The Crown’s submissions

1. [90]

   In respect of the factors relevant to the interests of justice test the Crown submitted as follows:

Consideration

1. [91]

   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.

2. [92]

   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.

3. [93]

   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.

4. [94]

   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.

5. [95]

   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.

6. [96]

   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.

7. [97]

   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.

8. [98]

   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.

9. [99]

   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.

10. [100]

    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.

11. [101]

    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.

12. [102]

    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.

13. [103]

    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.

14. [104]

    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.

15. [105]

    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.

16. [106]

    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.

17. [107]

    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.

18. [108]

    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.