R v STEELE [2026] SASC 91

Prosecution: R Counsel: MS S HALIKIAS - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Accused: KRISTOPHER ROBERT STEELE Counsel: MS T JOHNSON - Solicitor: LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION (SA) Hearing Date/s: 12/06/2026 File No/s: SCCRM-25-027515 B SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v STEELE Criminal Trial by Judge Alone [2026] SASC 91 Reasons for the Orders of the Honourable Justice Bampton 12 June 2026 CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER Defendant charged with murder – defendant raises the defence of mental incompetence to commit the offence – defendant elects for trial by judge alone – Court determined to proceed first with the trial of the objective elements – finding recorded that the objective elements of the offence of murder are established beyond reasonable doubt – investigation into defendant’s mental competence dispensed with – defendant declared mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder – finding recorded that defendant’s conduct is proved but the defendant is not criminally responsible due to mental competence – defendant is declared liable to supervision. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, ss 269B, 269C, 269D, 269GA, 269GB, 269Q, 269R, referred to. -- 1 of 5 -- -- 2 of 5 -- R v STEELE [2026] SASC 91 Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone 1 BAMPTON J: Kristopher Robert Steele is charged with the murder of John Charles Frederick Cox alleged to have been committed on 13 January 2025 at Cowandilla (“the alleged offence”). 2 Mr Steele raises the defence of mental incompetence to commit the alleged offence pursuant to s 269C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“the Act”). 3 Mr Steele elects for a trial by judge alone pursuant to s 269B(1) of the Act. 4 Pursuant to s 269G of the Act, I will proceed first with the objective elements of the alleged offence. The circumstances of the alleged offending 5 Mr Steele and Mr Cox were housemates residing together at an address in Cowandilla. On 13 January 2025, Mr Cox died following the infliction of stab wounds by Mr Steele using a pair of scissors. The cause of Mr Cox’s death was stab wounds to his neck. There were two stab wounds to the right side of Mr Cox’s neck that cut the right internal carotid artery and right internal jugular vein. Mr Cox had 111 minor non-lethal injuries, including superficial stab wounds to the face, neck, shoulders and upper chest. He had superficial stab wounds to his hands and forearms, consistent with defensive injuries. 6 Mr Steele and Mr Cox’s premises was fitted with CCTV cameras in the common areas. The CCTV footage captured Mr Cox entering his bedroom at 9:31 pm on 13 January 2025. At 9:48 pm, Mr Steele entered Mr Cox’s bedroom, and left after 10 minutes, with stains down the front of his clothing. At 10:14 pm, Mr Steele went into the bathroom and exited in a change of clothing. 7 On 14 January 2025, at 12:12 am, Mr Steele was captured on CCTV footage leaving his address. At 12:34 am, the police attended the vicinity of 202 Henley Beach Road, Torrensville, in relation to multiple trespasses at businesses. Mr Steele was walking through the Drakes carpark carrying two green bags. At 12:38 am, Mr Steele was placed under arrest for serious criminal trespass. At 1:12 am, the police cautioned Mr Steele and interviewed him in relation to the trespasses. Mr Steele admitted breaking into nearby businesses. When asked, “have you done any more that we haven’t become aware of yet”, Mr Steele responded, “yeah, I did kill somebody as well too”. Mr Steele provided further information to the police in relation to the alleged offending, including that he had used a pair of scissors, it had happened at his home address, and involved a man named John. Mr Steele was searched and police located a pair of scissors with bloodlike staining in one of his pockets. The green bags Mr Steele was carrying were found to contain shorts and a T-shirt consistent with those worn by Mr Steele -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] SASC 91 Bampton J 2 in the CCTV footage from his home address. Both the shorts and the T-shirt had bloodlike staining. 8 At 1:35 am, police attended at Mr Steele’s address and located Mr Cox on the floor of his bedroom. At 2:35 am, paramedics attended and declared Mr Cox deceased. Mr Steele was placed under arrest for the offence of murder. Trial of objective elements of the offence 9 Mr Steele consents to the tender of the declarations filed by the prosecution in this matter in respect of the alleged offence and agrees that those declarations be accepted into evidence pursuant to s 269GA(1) of the Act. Mr Steele admits the facts deposed to in the declarations. Mr Steele agrees the evidence establishes the objective elements of the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. I have, pursuant to s 269GA(1) of the Act, had regard to the evidence and representations put by the prosecution and Mr Steele in determining the question of whether the objective elements of the offence are established against Mr Steele. 10 I am satisfied that the objective elements of the offence of murder are established beyond reasonable doubt. Pursuant to s 269GA(2) of the Act, I record a finding that the objective elements of the offence of murder are established. Trial of Mr Steele’s mental competence 11 Having recorded the finding that the objective elements of the offence of murder are established, I turn to the trial of Mr Steele’s mental competence to commit the alleged offence. 12 Mr Steele acknowledges that he bears the onus of displacing the presumption of mental competence to commit the offence pursuant to s 269D of the Act. 13 Mr Steele submits that the expert evidence contained in the psychiatric reports of Dr Owen Haeney dated 18 February 2026 and 1 April 2026 and Dr William Brereton dated 11 March 2026 (“the reports”) establishes on the balance of probabilities that at the relevant time he was mentally incompetent to commit the offence as defined in s 269C of the Act. Mr Steele seeks, and the prosecution does not object to, the tender of the reports into evidence. Accordingly, I receive the reports into evidence. 14 Pursuant to s 269GB(1) of the Act, I have had regard to the reports and the representations put by the prosecution and Mr Steele on the question of Mr Steele’s mental competence to commit the offence. 15 Having interviewed Mr Steele and reviewed collateral information, Dr Haeney and Dr Brereton are each of the opinion that Mr Steele has a mental impairment, namely schizophrenia. Further, they each consider that Mr Steele, at the time of the conduct giving rise to the charge of murder, was mentally incompetent to have committed the alleged offence in accordance with s 269C(1)(b) of the Act. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] SASC 91 Bampton J 3 16 Dr Haeney does not consider that Mr Steele was unaware of the nature or quality of his conduct. However, Dr Haeney considers that at the time of his conduct giving rise to the charge of murder, Mr Steele was labouring under the effect of a psychotic mental illness and was unable to reason whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. Dr Haeney does not believe Mr Steele was totally unable to control his conduct. He considers that while Mr Steele’s control may have been adversely affected by his psychosis, including auditory hallucinations, there was nothing to suggest a complete incapacity. 17 It is Dr Brereton’s opinion that Mr Steele was psychotic at the time of the conduct giving rise to the charge of murder. Dr Brereton considers that Mr Steele’s mental impairment at the time of his conduct would not have prevented him from knowing the nature and quality of his conduct and, although Dr Brereton believes Mr Steele’s volition was substantially impaired, he would not, on balance, say Mr Steele was totally unable to control his conduct. However, Dr Brereton is of the opinion that, as a result of his psychotic symptoms, Mr Steele did not know his conduct was wrong. That is, Mr Steele could not reason about whether his conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong in the face of command auditory hallucinations and a distressing background of persecutory delusions. 18 I accept the evidence of Dr Haeney and Dr Brereton. 19 The prosecution concedes that, in light of the reports, Mr Steele has, on the balance of probabilities, displaced the presumption that he was mentally competent to have committed the alleged offence, and that Mr Steele was mentally incompetent to have committed the alleged offence. 20 Noting that Mr Steele and the prosecution agree, pursuant to s 269GB(5) of the Act, I dispense with the investigation into Mr Steele’s mental competence to commit the alleged offence. 21 I declare, pursuant to s 269GB(5)(b) of the Act, that Mr Steele was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder. I record a finding that Mr Steele’s conduct is proved but he is not criminally responsible due to mental incompetence. I declare him liable to supervision under Division 4, Subdivision 2 of the Act. 22 I adjourn the matter to 10 August 2026, allowing time for the provision of s 269Q and s 269R reports. -- 5 of 5 --