J H S v The Queen - [1991] TASSC 110

108/1991
List "A"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: J H S v R [1991] TASSC 110; A108/1991

PARTIES:  S, J H
  v
  R

FILE NO/S:  CCA 55/1991
DELIVERED ON:  19 December 1991
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
JUDGMENT OF:  Green CJ, Crawford and Zeeman JJ

Judgment Number: A108/1991
Number of paragraphs: 102

Serial No 108/1991
List "A"
File No CCA 55/1991

J H S v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

GREEN CJ
CRAWFORD J
ZEEMAN J (Dissenting)
19 December 1991

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 108/1991
List "A"
File No CCA 55/1991

J H S v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

GREEN CJ
19 December 1991

This is an appeal against the appellant's conviction for murder.

Ground 2 of the notice of appeal was abandoned. The remaining grounds of appeal are as follows:

"(1)THAT the verdict of Guilty of Murder is unjust, unreasonable, unsafe and unsatisfactory, particularly having regard to
(a)the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence of Dr Ian Patrick Burges Watson MRC Psych, FRANZCP, that the Appellant suffered from a mental disorder, namely Organic Delusional Syndrome secondary to a temporal lobe dysrhythmia; that he was mentally disordered at the time he killed his mother; and that he was, on the 28th July 1990, under an impulse which, by reason of mental disease, he was in substance deprived of any power to resist;
(b)the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence of Dr Ian Michael Sale, that the Appellant was Psychotic now; that he suffered from Schizophrenia; that he was Schizophrenic when he killed his mother; and that he was, on the 28th day of July 1990 afflicted with mental disease to such an extent to render him incapable of knowing that (the act) was one which he ought not do;
(c)the uncontradicted expert opinion evidence of Dr Christopher L. Williams BA (Hons), MPsych, PhD, MAPsS, Clinical Psychologist and Senior Lecturer in Clinical Psychology at the University of Tasmania that the Appellant suffered from a severe personality disorder; a Schizotypal personality disorder, a Schizoid personality disorder, borderline mental retardation; significant variation between verbal IQ and performance IQ; and that his findings were consistent with the Appellant suffering from Schizophrenia.
(d)the uncontradicted evidence of Mr Stephen Pinkus, Registered Psychologist of 15 years standing, and 10 years experience with the Child and Adolescent Service of the Mental Health Unit, State Department of Health, Clare House; that at 12½ years the Appellant was abnormal, and suffered from an uncontrollable temper;
(e)the uncontradicted evidence of [Miss R], Teacher, Registered Psychologist and Guidance Officer with the Education Department, that in 1989 she had occasion to Counsel the Appellant on 10 occasions, the Appellant's mother (the deceased) on two occasions, and that she had recommended further urgent treatment of the Appellant at the Mental Health Unit, Clare House, which said treatment was never undertaken; and,
(f)the fact that the Crown called no evidence in rebuttal of any of the Defence psychiatric and psychological expert evidence, nor…

Grounds of appeal

[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 J H S v The Queen

Details

AGLC: J H S v The Queen [1991] TASSC 110
Case: [1991] TASSC 110
Decision Date: 19 December 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania's Court of Criminal Appeal, the case of J H S v The Queen (1991) A108/1991 involved an appeal against the appellant's conviction for murder. The appeal raised several grounds, including the unreliability of the verdict, the exclusion of expert opinion evidence, the denial of the defence of provocation, and alleged misconduct by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The majority of the court found that the appellant's conviction should be quashed and a retrial ordered due to the wrongful admission of inadmissible evidence and improper comments by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The appellant, J H S, was convicted of murdering his mother. The primary issue was whether the appellant was legally insane at the time of the murder. The defence presented expert psychiatric evidence suggesting the appellant was suffering from a mental disorder, but the court found the evidence conflicting and insufficient to support a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court also addressed the exclusion of expert opinion evidence from a guidance officer and the denial of the defence of provocation, finding no error in these decisions.

The most significant issue was the admission of inadmissible evidence about the appellant's alleged contamination by another prisoner and the Director of Public Prosecutions' comments on this matter. The court found that the inadmissible evidence and comments likely influenced the jury's decision, depriving the appellant of a fair trial. Consequently, the majority upheld the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial.

Orders