SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Hansen v DPP & Anor [2006] QCA 396
PARTIES:
SHANNON ANDREW MATTHEW ARTHUR HANSEN
(appellant)
v
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(first respondent)
DIRECTOR OF MENTAL HEALTH
(second respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 10951 of 2005
MHC No 216 of 2004DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal from the Mental Health Court
ORIGINATING COURT:
Mental Health Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
13 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 September 2006
JUDGES:
Keane JA and Jones and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - APPEAL FROM MENTAL HEALTH COURT - appellant charged with murder of his stepfather - appellant committed for trial to the Supreme Court following preliminary hearing - Director of Public Prosecutions referred matter of appellant's mental condition relating to offence of murder to Mental Health Court - Mental Health Court concluded there was reasonable doubt as to whether appellant had committed murder - provocation - appellant challenges Mental Health Court's conclusion that the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) precluded the Mental Health Court from deciding that the appellant was either of unsound mind or of diminished responsibility when the deceased was killed - whether decision of Mental Health Court was correct
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 267, s 268
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 304
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118, cited
Hoyts Pty Ltd v Burns [2003] HCA 61; (2003) 77 ALJR 1934, cited
Johnson v The Queen (1976) 136 CLR 619, considered
Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58, cited
R v Rae [2006] QCA 207; CA No 330 of 2005, 9 June 2006 cited
Re RWC [2002] QMHC 015; No 0001 of 2002, 23 December 2002, appliedCOUNSEL:
B G Devereaux SC, with C L Morgan, for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondentsSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents
KEANE JA: The appellant was charged with the murder of his stepfather, Trevor Kupsch ("the deceased"), at Hervey Bay on 19 June 2004. The deceased suffered multiple stab wounds, and died as a result of wounds which penetrated the left lung and heart. It is common ground that the wounds were inflicted by the appellant. The appellant was committed for trial to the Supreme Court following a preliminary hearing.
Pursuant to s 256(1)(b) and s 257(1)(c) of the Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld) ("the Act"), the Director of Public Prosecutions ("the DPP") referred the matter of the appellant's mental condition relating to the offence of murder to the Mental Health Court ("the MHC").
The decision of the Mental Health Court
On the referral, the MHC accepted evidence that, at the time the appellant killed the deceased, the appellant was suffering from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his capacities. The MHC…
Continue reading Hansen v DPP
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hansen v DPP [2006] QCA 396
- Case
- [2006] QCA 396
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue was whether the Mental Health Court was correct in concluding that the Mental Health Act precluded it from deciding whether Hansen was of unsound mind or of diminished responsibility when the deceased was killed. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act and the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), as well as relevant case law. The court held that the Mental Health Court was correct in its conclusion, as the Mental Health Act only permitted the court to consider the appellant's mental condition at the time of the hearing, not at the time of the offence.
Hansen's appeal was dismissed. The court held that the Mental Health Court was correct in concluding that the Mental Health Act precluded it from deciding whether Hansen was of unsound mind or of diminished responsibility when the deceased was killed. The court found that the Mental Health Act only permitted the court to consider the appellant's mental condition at the time of the hearing, not at the time of the offence. The court held that the Mental Health Court's conclusion was consistent with the relevant provisions of the Mental Health Act and the Criminal Code, as well as relevant case law.
The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Mental Health Court was affirmed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.