R v Fiona Barbieri [2014] NSWSC 1808

Judgment Summary
Supreme Court
New South Wales
18 December 2014
R v Mitchell Barbieri; R v Fiona Barbieri [2014] NSWSC 1808
R A Hulme J
Mitchell Barbieri was sentenced today in the Supreme Court for the murder of a police
officer, Detective Inspector Bryson Anderson. His mother, Fiona Barbieri, was sentenced
for the manslaughter of Inspector Anderson and also for using an offensive weapon with
intent to hinder the lawful apprehension of her son. Both offenders had pleaded guilty when
their trial was due to commence last month.
Justice R A Hulme sentenced Mitchell Barbieri to imprisonment for 35 years with a nonparole period of 26 years. Fiona Barbieri was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years and 4
years 6 months. The sentences were partially accumulated so that her total sentence is
one of 10 years with a non-parole period of 7 years 6 months. The sentences were
backdated to 6 December 2012 as they had each been held in custody since their arrest.
At about 1.00pm on 6 December 2012, the Barbieris were at their home in Oakville when
they were involved in a confrontation with a neighbour, Mr Kevin Waters, his son, and
workers who had been hired to install floodlighting along the boundary of the properties.
There was an ongoing dispute between the Barbieris and Mr Waters relating to a
perception that he wanted to force the Barbieris from their property and buy it cheaply.
Mitchell Barbieri had a compound bow and fired arrows in the group’s general direction.
The Barbieris returned to their house after Mr Waters said that he was calling the police.
Police arrived and assessed the situation. They approached the front of the house after
attempts to engage with the Barbieris from the padlocked front gate of the property failed.
They made it clear who they were and that they wanted to talk. The Barbieris refused to
come outside. The police were told to go away with a barrage of expletives. After these
attempts to reason with the Barbieris through the front windows of the house failed,
Inspector Anderson and other officers went around to the back door. He communicated
with Mitchell through the back window and made it clear who he was. He told Mitchell that
he was wanted in connection with an offence. The expletive laden abuse continued from
inside the house with the police again being told to go away.
A decision was made to enter the house forcibly and the back door was kicked in. Two
large dogs came running out and then Mitchell Barbieri quickly emerged with a large
hunting knife and stabbed Inspector Anderson twice above his ballistics vest. Other officers
quickly moved to disarm and restrain Mitchell but Fiona Barbieri then came out with a
sledgehammer raised and attempted to hit one of the officers in the head. She missed and
struck his shin. The two offenders were brought under control after violent struggles and
they were removed from the property.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the
judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.
Meanwhile, officers called for an ambulance and attempted to assist Inspector Anderson as
best they could until it arrived. Tragically he soon passed away; the fatal stab wound
having penetrated 14cm down into his right lung.
A number of weapons were found as well as some explosive devices in a subsequent
search of the property. Upturned nails were concealed in leaf litter near the boundary to Mr
Waters’ property. Molotov cocktails were found in a granny flat. Items found in the house
included a sword, a barbed wire garrotte, a cattle prod, a large sledgehammer, a
homemade spear, baseball bats and bows and arrows.
Both offenders declined to talk to police about the incident but requested assistance from
the Russian consular office; they claimed that they were seeking asylum in Russia. They
denied having mental health problems. They were each psychiatrically assessed after
having been charged and refused bail.
It was determined that Ms Barbieri’s mental health had deteriorated significantly in the
years leading up to the incident. She had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in the
hypomania phase in 2010 and was detained for a short time in a mental health facility in
2011. Subsequent to her arrest she was diagnosed as suffering from ongoing symptoms of
psychosis and chronic paranoid schizophrenia.
She had developed entrenched
persecutory delusions relating to her previous employer, American Express, and her
neighbour, Mr Waters. She had been living with her son in social isolation and they were in
financial difficulties; the power and the telephone had been cut off for at least a year
because of unpaid bills.
There was no dispute that there was an unspoken agreement between Fiona Barbieri and
her son to resist the entry of police to their home and to resist the arrest of Mitchell. Justice
R A Hulme found that she foresaw the possibility of her son inflicting grievous bodily harm
upon at least one of the officers. It was found that her liability for murder was reduced to
manslaughter on the basis that she was suffering from a substantial impairment by
abnormality of mind. Justice Hulme found that her mental condition reduced her moral
culpability and lessened the degree to which retribution, denunciation and deterrence
should be taken into account. Her prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as being no
more than reasonable. Justice Hulme also concluded that she was not genuinely
remorseful given she had not accepted responsibility for her actions.
Mitchell Barbieri was 19 at the time of the offences. Over the preceding year or so he had
come to adopt his mother’s beliefs and delusions. He was diagnosed with “shared
delusional disorder”. The Crown conceded that this amounted to a “significant cognitive
impairment” and so the mandatory life sentence without parole for the murder of a police
officer (Crimes Act s 19B) did not apply. This impairment also reduced Mitchell Barbieri’s
moral culpability, but did not lessen the need for general deterrence which was considered
to be a very important aspect of sentencing for the murder of a police officer.
Justice Hulme found that Mitchell Barbieri had an intention to kill and that the offence was
above the middle of the range of seriousness. Although his rehabilitation prospects
appeared to be good, his Honour rejected a claim that he was remorseful on the basis that
he had not fully accepted responsibility for his actions.
This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the
judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.