R v Lambros

1. [1]

   John Lambros stands charged with the murder of Sophocles Koumoutsos, an offence which allegedly occurred in Marrickville on 13 August 2021. Mr Lambros was arraigned before the list Judge (Wilson J) in this Court on 9 December 2022 and pleaded not guilty on the ground of mental impairment. On 3 November 2022, Mr Lambros elected to be tried by judge alone and the Director of Public Prosecutions consented to this election. Accordingly, pursuant to s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (“the CP Act”) Wilson J made a “trial by Judge order” on 9 December 2022. The matter was listed for trial and allocated to commence before me today.

2. [2]

   At all stages, Mr Lambros’ legal advisers indicated that the only issues at the trial arose from the state of Mr Lambros’ mental health at the time of the killing of Mr Koumoutsos. He relied on the opinions of Dr Andrew Ellis, forensic psychiatrist, provided in detailed reports which had been served on the Director of Public Prosecutions. In written disclosures pursuant to ss 141 and 143 of the CP Act, Mr Lambros conceded that the prosecution could establish the physical elements of the offence of murder. He indicated that he relied on the defence of mental impairment and sought a special verdict of “act proven but not criminally responsible”. The notices said he would also contend, in the alternative, that he was substantially impaired pursuant to s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This would reduce his liability from murder to manslaughter.

3. [3]

   On 24 April 2023, the prosecution indicated its agreement that the defence of mental health impairment was or could be established. The Director had obtained a report from Dr Adam Martin, another forensic psychiatrist. Dr Martin came, more or less, to the same conclusions as Dr Ellis.

4. [4]

   The parties notified my Associate of their joint view that the matter could proceed, at least initially, pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”). That section provides:

5. [5]

   The section, and its procedural and legal implications, has been considered in a number of cases: see, for example, R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064, R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292, R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404 and R v Lailna [2023] NSWSC 48. It has arisen in cases where a trial has already commenced, in cases where no trial date has been fixed, and in cases like the present, where a trial date has been set but the trial is yet to commence. The procedure was described as an “evidentiary inquiry” by Judge Abadee in R v Gough [2021] NSWDC 180 and that phrase has been adopted by single Judges of this Court: see R v Jackson (Johnson J) and R v Lailna (Chen J). In R v Jackson, Johnson J said:

6. [6]

   This evidentiary inquiry in Mr Lambros’ case commenced this morning. The Prosecutor tendered a bundle of documents as Exhibit A and Mr Lambros tendered a report of Dr Ellis dated 14 June 2022. Counsel for both parties filed helpful written submissions (MFI 1 and 2).

7. [7]

   Based on the evidence and the submissions I am satisfied that:

   1. (1)

      The parties agree that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental health impairment (pursuant to s 28 and the definition in s 4 of the Act).

   2. (2)

      Mr Lambros is represented by two eminently qualified and experienced Australian legal practitioners.

   3. (3)

      The evidence establishes, on the balance of probabilities, the defence under s 28.

8. [8]

   Accordingly, as I indicated in the course of submissions this morning, a special verdict will be entered. Before formally entering that verdict, I will briefly explain my reasons for doing so.

The facts and acts leading to the death of Sophocles Koumoutsos

1. [9]

   Mr Lambros accepts that his acts caused the death of Sophocles Koumoutsos and the evidence establishes clearly that he did so. There is an agreed statement of facts and a statement by John Koumoutsos, who is the brother of the deceased.

2. [10]

   Mr Lambros and Mr Koumoutsos were friends and they occasionally used drugs together. Mr Koumoutsos was 55 years old and was undergoing chemotherapy for lung cancer at the time of his death.

3. [11]

   On 7 July 2021, approximately a month before the offence, Mr Lambros and Mr Koumoutsos took heroin together. After taking heroin Mr Lambros started experiencing pain throughout his body and formed the belief that Mr Koumoutsos had given him “adulterated” drugs, instead of heroin, and had tried to kill him. This belief was delusional; Mr Koumoutsos did no such thing. However, Mr Lambros believed it and wrote a letter to a friend named Jake that same day which said:

4. [12]

   Between 5:14pm on 7 July and 12:52am on 8 July 2021, Mr Lambros and Mr Koumoutsos exchanged text messages and ‘phone calls discussing the symptoms that Mr Lambros said he was experiencing from taking the heroin. Mr Lambros did not accuse Mr Koumoutsos of giving him contaminated drugs.

5. [13]

   However, Mr Lambros again wrote to Jake on 8 July 2021. He repeated his belief that Mr Koumoutsos had not given him heroin, and said he was feeling “very sick” and claimed that Mr Koumoutsos “really is dangerous”. Again, those beliefs were delusional.

6. [14]

   On 9, 10 and 13 July 2021, Mr Lambros attended his GP’s office reporting burning in his body, pain and headaches.

7. [15]

   Mr Lambros also wrote a number of diary entries between 31 July and 12 August 2021. He described his symptoms and said he felt like he was dying. He wrote that Mr Koumoutsos had poisoned him and that he wanted revenge. Two extracts of these entries are as follows:

8. [16]

   On 4 August 2021, Mr Lambros attended Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (“RPAH”) complaining of a burning and buzzing sensation with muscle spasms in his body (described as pins and needles). No neurological abnormality was detected, and Mr Lambros was referred back to his GP.

9. [17]

   Mr Lambros also reported his symptoms to a friend and former neighbour, Helen Kosac, who had planned to see him on 13 August 2021.

10. [18]

    On the morning of 13 August 2021, Mr Lambros wrote in his diary:

11. [19]

    At around 11:32am, CCTV footage recorded Mr Lambros entering and placing an order at a Chicken Shop in Dulwich Hill. At 11:37am, Mr Koumoutsos got off a bus in front of the chicken shop. He entered the shop, placed an order, and waited inside. At 11:38am, Mr Lambros returned to the chicken shop to collect his order and noticed Mr Koumoutsos. Mr Lambros stepped forward towards Mr Koumoutsos but quickly turned around and left. A few minutes later, Mr Lambros returned to the front of the chicken shop to confirm that Mr Koumoutsos was still inside and then he walked away.

12. [20]

    At 11:44am, Mr Lambros crossed the intersection, sat down and ate his food, while looking in the general direction of the chicken shop. He then walked home and made the following entry in his diary:

13. [21]

    At 11:49am, Mr Koumoutsos left the chicken shop and sat at the bus stop. At around 11:55am, Mr Lambros drove his car past Mr Koumoutsos and at 11:58am, Mr Koumoutsos boarded the bus to travel home. At 12:01pm, Mr Lambros was recorded by a camera attached to the front of the bus. He was sitting on a brick wall outside Mr Koumoutsos’ home. Mr Lambros walked towards the bus stop with a knife in his right-hand.

14. [22]

    Mr Koumoutsos got off the bus and stood at the bus stop. Mr Lambros punched Mr Koumoutsos with his right hand a number of times. Mr Koumoutsos tried to step back and push Mr Lambros away. Witnesses described Mr Koumoutsos falling to the ground after Mr Lambros punched him. Mr Lambros held Mr Koumoutsos by the shirt and stabbed him to the chest and neck a number of times.

15. [23]

    Mr Lambros then walked to his car which was parked nearby and drove home. Mr Koumoutsos sat on a small brick wall behind the bus stop. He was bleeding heavily and fell backwards onto the garden bed. One witness attempted to assist him. Another called an ambulance.

16. [24]

    Police arrived at the scene at around 12:05pm. They saw large pools of blood on the footpath and Mr Koumoutsos lying across the wall in the garden bed. Constable Matthew Huang noticed that Mr Koumoutsos had puncture wounds in his neck and chest. Police and ambulance officers were unable to resuscitate him. He was pronounced dead at 12:30pm.

17. [25]

    At around 12:15pm, police arrived at Mr Lambros’ address and spoke to him through his rear window. Mr Lambros was initially compliant when asked to step outside. He had blood on his right hand. Once outside, Mr Lambros quickly retreated back inside, ignored further directions and armed himself with a knife. He told police: “just shoot me”, “he deserved it”, “I made my bed, I’m going to have to lie in it”, “everyone thinks it’s in my fucking head”, “I’d rather end up at the morgue”, and “I’m not a bad person, I just did a bad thing”. Police observed him drinking from methadone bottles and consuming a number of tablets.

18. [26]

    At about 2:10pm, tactical police entered the premises and Mr Lambros was arrested. Paramedics noticed a laceration on one of Mr Lambros’ right fingers, which he attributed to a “previous altercation” that was “drug related”. Mr Lambros was charged and taken to RPAH.

19. [27]

    A post-mortem examination was conducted on 17 and 18 August 2021 by a Forensic Pathologist, Dr Alexandra Kullen. Mr Koumoutsos had eight stab wounds to his face, neck and torso. Dr Kullen determined that the cause of death was “stab wounds to the neck and chest and the consequences thereof”.

20. [28]

    DNA of Mr Koumoutsos was found on Mr Lambros’ hands and on a knife that was later found in Mr Lambros’ car. There is a photo of that in the exhibits.

21. [29]

    Mr Koumoutsos had a brother John. He made a witness statement and described his family’s long association with Mr Lambros. They all met, as Greek immigrants, when they lived in adjoining properties in Dulwich Hill. He described his brother’s drug use over many years and his brother’s involvement with Mr Lambros including their mutual use of heroin. His brother had stopped for a while but resumed using heroin after he was diagnosed with lung cancer.

22. [30]

    John Koumoutsos described events around the relevant time. He overheard a telephone conversation in which Mr Lambros said that the “crap today was shit”. His brother told Mr Lambros he could not be serious and reminded him that they had gone back to get more. This conversation took place – I would infer – after the pair had shared the heroin on 7 July which, when all is said and done, is the cause of the tragic events that followed.

23. [31]

    John Koumoutsos noticed that Mr Lambros had not been in touch for some time after this conversation and that was unusual. His brother told him he assumed Mr Lambros must have accepted that the heroin they shared was okay.

24. [32]

    That is what John thought until Friday 13 August.

25. [33]

    That day, he heard sirens after he woke up and became aware that his brother had been killed. John had to explain what had happened to his mother and it took him several times to do so.

The evidence of the psychiatrists

1. [34]

   As I said earlier, reports of Dr Ellis and Dr Martin were tendered at the hearing. Dr Ellis conducted a two-hour interview with Mr Lambros via audio-visual link (“AVL”) on 18 February 2022. Dr Martin met with Mr Lambros for 90 minutes, also by AVL, on 23 June 2022. The experts were asked to provide their opinions on whether the defence of mental illness or the partial defence of substantial impairment were available to Mr Lambros and reviewed his medical history and the brief of evidence to assist them in their assessment.

2. [35]

   Both experts gave a summary of Mr Lambros’ background and personal history.

3. [36]

   Mr Lambros is 63 years old and was 61 at the time he killed Mr Koumoutsos. He was born in Greece and migrated to Australia with his family in the 1970s, when he was 11. His parents argued frequently. His mother was strict and would often “belt” him. Mr Lambros reported that he was assaulted once by an older brother and sexually abused by an older male cousin when he was a young boy.

4. [37]

   Mr Lambros said he struggled socially in school and fell in with what he described as the “wrong crowd”. He left school at the age of 15 and performed various jobs in the Greek community before securing a job as a mechanic. He attempted an apprenticeship but did not complete it. Nevertheless, he worked as a mechanic in various places until 2007.

5. [38]

   In 2002 Mr Lambros’ mother passed away from a car accident. After his mother’s death, Mr Lambros had to stop his father from attempting suicide on two occasions. His father died in 2013 from natural causes. Mr Lambros’ brother died of a heart attack in 2019.

6. [39]

   Mr Lambros was married in 1985 and described his marriage as “rocky”. He and his wife separated and got back together several times. His wife died in 2016 from ovarian cancer. He has four adult children and two grandchildren. He has not remarried and lived alone in the family home until the time of his arrest.

7. [40]

   Mr Lambros has, according to the reports, a limited criminal history. As a young adult, he was given bonds for driving a stolen vehicle and stealing a car and was subject to an apprehended violence order and charged with assault during a period of separation from his wife.

8. [41]

   However, while his criminal history is minor, he reported a lengthy history of drug use. He has been smoking and drinking since he was a teenager. He started smoking cannabis when he was 14 and stopped when he was 35, because he experienced “paranoia” while using that drug. He has taken lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), speed, cocaine and psylocibin (magic mushrooms). He started using heroin daily from 1993 and began taking methadone, prescribed by his doctor, around two years later. He had a period of abstinence from heroin for a few years but relapsed after his mother’s death in 2002. He described himself as being drug free from 2011, but still used heroin occasionally while on the methadone program.

9. [42]

   Before the offence, his main source of income was from the disability support pension, which he had been on since 2007. He had to stop work because of physical injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).

10. [43]

    Dr Martin noted that the first recorded instance of Mr Lambros possibly experiencing psychotic symptoms was on 1 March 1998, when he presented to a hospital complaining of “pains like electricity shocks shooting down his arms/legs”, after being injected with “speed” by his friend. He was assessed as suffering from neurosis and anxiety withdrawal from pain medication. He was not diagnosed with a psychotic illness.

11. [44]

    Before the offence, Mr Lambros had been treated for hepatitis C, nerve pain in his left arm, hypothyroidism and diabetes. In 2007 he suffered a stroke and in 2008 he presented to an emergency department with left-sided paralysis. A CT scan showed no abnormality in his brain, and he recovered physical function spontaneously. An MRI later showed the cause of his paralysis was due to reduced blood supply in both sides of his brain.

12. [45]

    In 2010 Mr Lambros was diagnosed by a psychologist with PTSD, depression, dysphoria and anxiety, following the deaths of his mother and father, stress of his marriage breakdown and his loss of employment. He was prescribed anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medication, which he continued to take for some years. Mr Lambros also takes blood pressure medication and has been taking methadone for around 20 years. He reported previous suicide attempts after being “overwhelmed with everything” but has never been admitted to a mental health facility.

13. [46]

    On 23 May 2011, Mr Lambros presented to the emergency department complaining of “increased burning on the inside of [his] body” after heroin use. He was thought to be experiencing distress or benzodiazepine withdrawal. On 24 May 2011, Mr Lambros was re-admitted to the emergency department following an overdose of methadone and antipsychotic medication. He reported that he had a “bad shot” over the weekend and complained of a “burning sensation to his back, anus and scrotum”.

14. [47]

    Mr Lambros was seen by a psychiatrist from the pain clinic in 2016 and 2017. No diagnosis was made, and he was told to continue with anti-depressant medication.

15. [48]

    On 10 July 2021, a few days after Mr Lambros consumed heroin with Mr Koumoutsos, he saw his GP and was diagnosed with an infection in his left arm. Three days later Mr Lambros went back to his GP, complaining of anxiety and a burning sensation in his body.

16. [49]

    In the weeks after Mr Lambros consumed heroin with Mr Koumoutsos, Mr Lambros reported that he went to the emergency department twice. However, records show he was only examined in the emergency department once, on 4 August 2021. On that occasion, he complained of widespread numbness and a burning sensation over his body. A neurological examination was normal.

17. [50]

    On 6 August 2021, Mr Lambros saw his GP again complaining about the burning sensation over his body. He was told that he had high blood pressure and was instructed to cease taking antidepressant medication.

18. [51]

    Mr Lambros was treated at RPAH following his arrest on 13 August and was discharged into police custody around a week later. Doctors’ notes documented that Mr Lambros complained about a burning sensation in his brain, back and stomach, a metallic taste in his mouth and twitching in his body. He told doctors he had been feeling this way for five to six weeks after injecting a drug that was not heroin. However, Mr Lambros did not report any “particular suspicious conspiracy or foul play”. Mr Lambros said he could not remember the offence. The treating doctor believed that Mr Lambros was suffering from a depressive illness with anxious features, coinciding with the substance injection, as well as alcohol withdrawal. The doctor did not identify any psychotic symptoms but said that “delusional mood or somatic delusions cannot be excluded”. The doctor referred him for further psychiatric assessment in custody and prescribed antidepressant and insomnia medication.

19. [52]

    While in custody between 17 August 2021 and 8 October 2021, Mr Lambros was seen several times by forensic psychiatrists, mental health nurses and a GP. Mr Lambros was suicidal and experiencing abnormal sensations and pain in his body, along with insomnia and sightlessness. He consistently repeated that the heroin he took was “laced with something”. Psychiatrists who assessed him found that he did not present with symptoms of psychosis. The antidepressant and insomnia medications were discontinued.

20. [53]

    On 11 and 12 February 2022, Mr Lambros was admitted to hospital complaining of a “burning like sensation all over his body … post being injected with an unknown substance … by someone that was trying to kill him”. Mr Lambros also reported that the pain had gotten much worse, he had lost sensation in his legs, his muscles were stiff and tight, and he had a strong chemical taste in his mouth and nose. A CT brain scan showed no abnormalities. Mr Lambros was discharged back into custody.

21. [54]

    Since 12 February 2022 Mr Lambros was seen by a psychiatrist, a GP and a substance use physician. His mental state was said to be stable, other than his belief about being injected with poison. He was found again to be compliant with the methadone program. However, he was found to have weak vision, a drooping eyelid, reduced sensation in his left leg, bad coordination and a brain tumour. The GP was of the opinion that Mr Lambros may have multiple sclerosis or an autoimmune disease and referred him to a neurologist.

22. [55]

    Both Dr Martin and Dr Ellis described Mr Lambros as “polite”, “cooperative” and “calm” during their consultations. Both doctors said he was able to give a detailed account of his history but had a fragmented memory of the offence. Mr Lambros remembered having poor sleep and taking a large amount of Valium the night before, being angry at Mr Koumoutsos for giving him the drugs, and seeing Mr Koumoutsos at the bus stop. He then “remembers someone yelling out to him … a lot of blood” and “someone yelling at him ‘enough!’” Mr Lambros also remembers that he went home and attempted suicide by taking a large amount of methadone.

23. [56]

    During both consultations he expressed his belief that Mr Koumoutsos deliberately poisoned and tried to kill him. He said he still experiences burning sensations and pins and needles in various parts of his body and brain, poor sleep, low energy, diarrhoea, loss of appetite, dental pain, loss of control in his legs, a metallic taste in his mouth, dry nostrils, blurred vision and “burning in [his] eye sockets”. He attributed these symptoms to the drugs that Mr Koumoutsos injected in him.

24. [57]

    Dr Ellis reported that Mr Lambros showed “no evidence of gross formal thought disorder. There was no evidence of depressive cognition. He described his mood as flat and his emotional expression was anguished particularly when describing his physical experiences”. Furthermore, he “became irritated when it was suggested that his symptoms could be caused by a mental illness”. Mr Lambros denied any symptoms consistent with hallucinations, delusions or drug withdrawal.

25. [58]

    Dr Martin said Mr Lambros expressed wariness and suspiciousness, consistent with paranoia, around the possibility that he was poisoned. However, Dr Martin found that no bizarre or psychotic phenomena were present in Mr Lambros’ behaviour, and he did not look hallucinated.

26. [59]

    Dr Ellis diagnosed Mr Lambros with:

    1. (1)

       A delusional disorder of a persecutory type;

    2. (2)

       Substance use disorder (specifically around opioids, benzodiazepines, and alcohol); and

    3. (3)

       Three neurological deficits, which he described as gaze problems, drooping eyelids, sensation disturbance and involution (shrinking) of the pituitary gland in the brain.

27. [60]

    Dr Ellis gave the opinion that Mr Lambros was suffering from a mental health impairment, specifically a delusional disorder, at the time of the offence:

28. [61]

    Dr Ellis further stated that Mr Lambros’ conduct before and after the offence meant that he was not “faking” his mental impairment:

29. [62]

    Dr Ellis concluded that the defence of mental impairment was available to Mr Lambros:

30. [63]

    Dr Martin agreed with Dr Ellis’ diagnoses and, in particular, that Mr Lambros had a delusional disorder at the time offence as well as a substance use disorder. He gave the following opinion:

31. [64]

    Dr Martin agreed that Mr Lambros was not faking or malingering the signs of a mental illness as “there is clear evidence in the information above of him having sought medical attention with the expressed belief of having been poisoned by a ‘hot shot’ prior to the alleged offending”.

32. [65]

    Dr Martin concluded that Mr Lambros had a mental health impairment, specifically a delusional disorder:

33. [66]

    Dr Martin stated that, although it was likely that Mr Lambros knew the nature and quality of his acts, he agreed with Dr Ellis that the defence of mental illness, to use the old phrase, was still available to him:

Consideration and conclusion

1. [67]

   I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lambros committed the acts that killed Mr Koumoutsos; of that there can really be no doubt.

2. [68]

   Section 4 of the Act defines a “mental health impairment” as follows:

3. [69]

   Section 28 of the Act provides for the defence of mental health impairment:

4. [70]

   Based on the history provided by Mr Lambros to the experts and the opinion of those experts, as well as the many and various complaints Mr Lambros has made of something that did not happen (that is, that Mr Koumoutsos gave him a hot-shot of some kind, an expression of a state of facts which I find to be delusional), I am satisfied that Mr Lambros was suffering from a delusional belief that Mr Koumoutsos had poisoned him. I am satisfied that this belief resulted from the psychiatric conditions (or to use the language of the statute, the mental health impairments), with which both Dr Ellis and Dr Martin have since diagnosed him.

5. [71]

   On the balance of probabilities, I find that the effect of these things was that Mr Lambros did not know, at the time he stabbed Mr Koumoutsos to death, that his acts were wrong. That is, because of his delusional state of mind at the time, Mr Lambros could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether his act, as it would be perceived by a reasonable person, was wrong.

Special verdict

1. [72]

   Accordingly, I here and now enter a special verdict that “the act causing death is proved but that Mr Lambros is not criminally responsible for that act”.

Consequential orders (and the reasons formulated after the hearing)

1. [73]

   I made certain consequential orders after the special verdict was returned and indicated I would provide brief reasons for those orders after the Court adjourned.

2. [74]

   After the special verdict was returned and entered, the Prosecutor tendered a victim impact statement from John Koumoutsos. This is permitted by s 30L(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Sentencing Act”). I spoke directly to Mr Koumoutsos and his family after reading that statement and acknowledging its receipt into evidence: s 30L(2) of the Sentencing Act. The purposes to which the statement can be put are limited by the remaining paragraphs of s 30L, but had I made an order for the conditional release of Mr Lambros, I would have been entitled to take the statement into account in formulating the conditions.

3. [75]

   However, I did not make such an order. The effect of a special verdict is set out in s 33(1) of the Act:

4. [76]

   Both parties submitted that I should make an order under s 33(1)(b) of the Act. That would have the effect that Mr Lambros will remain in custody until released “by due process of the law”. That process is set out in Pt 5 of the Act. Because of Mr Lambros’ minor criminal history and the fact that the reports do not suggest that he represents a current danger, I hesitated before accepting the joint position of the parties. However, I ultimately did so for the following reasons.

5. [77]

   Neither of the psychiatrists whose reports were tendered have consulted with Mr Lambros in recent times and neither provided an opinion which addressed the question of whether Mr Lambros may represent a danger to himself or other members of the community if he is released at this stage. There is at least some evidence of Mr Lambros having, at times, a suicidal ideation and the evidence suggests that, at least at the time of the most recent consultation, Mr Lambros continued to hold beliefs that may be delusional: see, for example, [52]-[57] above. There is also evidence that Mr Lambros expressed similar beliefs – that he had physical symptoms of burning associated with earlier heroin use – as early as 2011: see [46] above.

6. [78]

   Section 33(1) of the Act provides:

7. [79]

   The evidence before the Court could not support such a finding on the balance of probabilities. Neither party sought to tender any additional evidence and it was not appropriate to request a report from a psychiatrist under s 33(2) when doing so was likely to result in further delay, before the possibility of Mr Lambros being released is addressed. The better course is to allow the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) to consider the question after its mandatory review under s 78(c) of the Act. That review must occur “as soon as practicable”. Obtaining further evidence would have taken some considerable time with no guarantee that appropriate conditions of release could be formulated in the absence of the expertise and authority possessed by the Tribunal. The parties said Dr Martin and Dr Ellis were available to give further evidence on Tuesday 2 May 2022, but they were unlikely to have been able to provide any relevant opinion given that neither have consulted with Mr Lambros for many months.

8. [80]

   I also considered the privacy concerns of John Koumoutsos which were raised by the Prosecutor: see s 30N of the Sentencing Act. Subject to the requirement under s 30N(4) to include his victim impact statement in the material sent to the Tribunal, I made orders restricting access to his victim impact statement and for there to be no publication of its contents.

Orders

1. [81]

   Before formally recording the orders, I record my thanks to counsel and their instructing solicitors for the efficient conduct of these proceedings and assistance with the relatively new provisions.

2. [82]

   For those reasons I made the following orders:

   1. (1)

      A special verdict be entered, pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), namely the act is proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible due to mental impairment.

   2. (2)

      Pursuant to ss 33 and 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), the defendant is to be detained in a correctional facility or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until he is released by due process of law.

   3. (3)

      That the Registrar notify the Minister for Health of these orders within 7 days.

   4. (4)

      That the Registrar notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the verdict and these orders within 7 days.

   5. (5)

      That the Registrar provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of this judgment, orders and exhibits tendered within 7 days.

   6. (6)

      That the Registrar notify Justice Health of the verdict and orders, and provide a copy of the judgment, orders and exhibits to Justice Health within 7 days.

   7. (7)

      There is to be no publication of the victim impact statement (Exhibit B). It will be put in an envelope and marked not to be opened except by order of a judge of this Court. If there is any application for access to the court file, that document is not to be released until the parties have had an opportunity to be heard. An exception to the non-publication order is that Exhibit B will go with the other exhibits to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. It will not be sent to Justice Health. The Registrar to be notified accordingly.