Harrison CJ at CL at [1] Davies J at [2] Weinstein J at [91]
Decision:
1. Extend time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal to 28 November 2024.
2. Grant leave to appeal.
3. Uphold the appeal.
4. Quash the conviction.
5. Grant leave to the appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty to the murder of Gabriella Delaney.
6. Remit the matter to the Supreme Court for retrial.
7. Stand into the Arraignments List in the Supreme Court on 4 July 2025.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the murder of his sister – where the applicant was under the influence of drugs at the time of the offending – where the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia – where the applicant entered his plea on the basis of advice that the applicant did not meet the definition of “mental health impairment” – whether the advice was wrong and thus constituted a miscarriage of justice – whether the applicant’s impairment at the time of the offending was “solely caused” by drug ingestion – where none of the expert evidence engaged with the “caused solely by” test – the advice given to the applicant was wrong – conviction set aside
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – whether the Crown bears the onus of demonstrating that s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) applies – where s 4(3) provides an exception or a qualification to what is contained in s 4(1) – where the Crown asserts no mental health impairment by reason of ingestion of drugs or substance use disorder the Crown bears the onus of proof under s 4(3)
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Delaney v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Delaney v The King [2025] NSWCCA 76
Case
[2025] NSWCCA 76
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Delaney, appealed against his conviction for the murder of his sister, arguing that the advice he received regarding his mental health status at the time of the offence was incorrect, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Delaney had pleaded guilty to the murder while under the influence of drugs and diagnosed with schizophrenia. He entered his plea based on the advice that he did not meet the definition of “mental health impairment” under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The applicant argued that this advice was incorrect and that his impairment was solely caused by drug ingestion. The court had to decide whether the advice was erroneous and if the applicant’s condition was caused solely by drug ingestion, a point none of the expert evidence had directly addressed.
The court examined whether the applicant’s mental health impairment was “solely caused” by drug ingestion, as per s 4(3) of the Act, which provides an exception to s 4(1). The court found that the advice provided to Delaney was incorrect, as it failed to consider the “caused solely by” test. The applicant’s condition was not merely a result of drug ingestion, but a combination of drug influence and his underlying schizophrenia. The court also considered the burden of proof under s 4(3), concluding that it was the Crown’s responsibility to demonstrate that the exception applied. As the Crown did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Delaney’s impairment was solely caused by drug ingestion, the applicant’s conviction was set aside due to a miscarriage of justice.