CITATION: Justins v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 242
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 4 June 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Simpson J at 132; Johnson J at 275

DECISION: The appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed and a new trial ordered.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - offences against the person - homicide - where the deceased had an illness causing cognitive degeneration - where the deceased consumed a drug given to him by the appellant knowing that by doing so he would die - whether the act causing death was that of the deceased or the appellant - whether the trial judge’s directions on the mental capacity of the deceased were erroneous - whether possessing the capacity to commit suicide requires a person to make an “informed decision to take one’s own life” - CRIMINAL LAW - offences against the person - manslaughter - whether manslaughter by criminal negligence available where a person makes a drug available for another’s consumption intending that death will result - whether failure to make enquiries of a person’s mental capacity capable of constituting a breach of duty causing death - CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - summing up - whether trial miscarried due to trial judge not identifying essential element of the offence in written directions but doing so in oral directions - CRIMINAL LAW - appeal and new trial - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 8(1) - whether an acquittal or a new trial should be ordered - WORDS AND PHRASES - “suicide”

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Australian Capital Territory v JT [2009] ACTSC 105; (2009) 232 FLR 322
Banks v Goodfellow [1870] LR 5 QB 549
Brightwater Care Group (Inc) v Rossiter [2009] WASC 229
Clift v Schwabe (1846) 3 CB 437
Dyers v R [2002] HCA 45; (2002) 210 CLR 285
Gammage v R (1969) 122 CLR 444
H Limited v J and Anor [2010] SASC 176; (2010) 240 FLR 402
Hong v R [2009] NSWCCA 242
Hunter and New England Area Health Service v A by his Tutor T [2009] NSWSC 761; (2009) 74 NSWLR 88
In Re Davis [1968] 1 QB 72
Nydam v R [1977] VR 430
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107
People v Beardsley 113 NW 1128 (1907)
R v Downs (1985) 3 NSWLR 312
R v Sam (No. 17) [2009] NSWSC 803
R v Schneidas (No 2) [1981] 2 NSWLR 713
R v Taktak (1988) 14 NSWLR 226
Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290
Re Estate of Paul Francis Hodges Deceased; Shorter v Hodges (1988) 14 NSWLR 698
Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Fam 95
Regina v Kennedy (No 2) [2007] UKHL 38; [2008] 1 AC 269
Reid v The Queen…

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 Justins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Justins v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 242
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 242
Decision Date: 28 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Justins was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The deceased had a degenerative cognitive condition and consumed a drug given to him by Justins, knowing that it would result in death. Justins appealed against the conviction, arguing that the deceased had made an informed decision to commit suicide and that the trial judge's directions on the deceased's mental capacity were incorrect. The appeal also contended that manslaughter by criminal negligence was not available and that the trial miscarried due to the trial judge's written directions omitting an essential element of the offence. Justins sought an acquittal or a new trial under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

The legal issues before the court were whether the deceased had the capacity to commit suicide, whether manslaughter by criminal negligence was available, and whether the trial miscarried due to the trial judge's directions. The court considered the legal definition of suicide and the capacity required to commit it. It also examined the principles of manslaughter by criminal negligence and whether Justins' actions constituted a breach of duty causing death. Additionally, the court reviewed the trial judge's summing up to determine if it accurately reflected the essential elements of the offence.

The court held that the deceased's cognitive degeneration meant he lacked the capacity to commit suicide, as it required an informed decision. The court found that manslaughter by criminal negligence was available in circumstances where a person makes a drug available for another's consumption with the intention that death will result. The court concluded that the trial judge's summing up did not miscarry, as the essential elements of the offence were addressed in the oral directions. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders