Director of Public Prosecutions v A P
[2008] VSC 301
•11 August 2008
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | ||
| CRIMINAL DIVISION | Not Restricted | |
No. 1455 of 2007
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| AP |
---
JUDGE: | CUMMINS J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 11 August 2008 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 11 August 2008 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v AP |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION | [2008] VSC 301 |
---
Criminal law and procedure – murder – verdict not guilty because of mental impairment – s.20(2) Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director | Mr C. Beale | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Dane QC Ms H. Spowart | Victoria Legal Aid |
-----------
HIS HONOUR:
In this matter the accused, AP, is charged with the murder on 24 July 2006 at Diamond Creek of Mr SK.
I have read all the material in the case. I have given particular attention to the statement of F, on 24 July 2006, the son of the relationship who had the terrible trauma of being present at the scene and at the death of his father and the Court does wholly understand the terrible situation that F has experienced.
It is a very serious thing for the Court to be satisfied that a person is so mentally impaired as in law not to be held legally responsible in the normal way for the killing of another person. I am, however, satisfied in this case by the very substantial amount of medical evidence that, at the time of the killing of Mr K by AP, she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct is perceived by reasonable people was wrong. That in law, means as the courts have held now over a century, that a person is mentally impaired. As a consequence the proper finding of the Court is that, if a person at the time of the killing was mentally impaired, the Court should find that person not guilty by reason of mental impairment with certain very serious consequences that flow from that. What that does not mean is that a person therefore simply walks away from the Court. That is not the consequence. There are very serious medical consequences of such a finding. I do make that finding. I will reduce all my reasons properly to expression in writing because I wish to refer to the numerous medical reports properly. The verdict I enter in the records of the Court is that AP is not guilty of murder because of mental impairment, in accordance with s.20(2) Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.
0
0
0