Lane and Hales - [2000] NTSC 5

Lane and Hales [2000] NTSC 5
PARTIES:JAMES ANDREW LANE

and
PETER WILLIAM HALES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 78 of 1999 (9817512)
DELIVERED:  28 February 2000
HEARING DATES:  7 February 2000
JUDGMENT OF:  Mildren J
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Ms S Cox
Respondent:  Mr M Carey
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:           B
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  16

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Lane and Hale [2000] NTSC 5

No. JA78 of 1999
BETWEEN:

JAMES ANDREW LANE

Appellant

AND:

PETER WILLIAM HALES

Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 28 February 2000)
Mildren J:

The appellant was charged with having unlawfully damaged property, namely a window, to the value of $400 being the property of John and Sara Alexopoulos, contrary to s251(1) of the Criminal Code. He pleaded not guilty.
The appellant's case was that he was in a deluded state of mind at the time and that, accordingly, he was entitled to the benefit of s35(2) of the Criminal Code which provides:
A person whose mind, at the time of his doing, making or causing an act, omission or event, was effected by delusions on some specific matter or matters, but who is not otherwise entitled to the benefit of the foregoing provisions of this section, is criminally responsible for the act, omission or event to the same extent as if the real state of things had been such as he was inducted by the delusions to believe to exist.
The appellant's case was that at the relevant time, he was suffering from a delusion that he was being pursued by persons who were trying to kill him. Fearing for his life, he broke the window to get inside the house to obtain help. It was submitted that the circumstances (if they had been real) amounted to a sudden and extraordinary emergency which would have excused the appellant from criminal responsibility pursuant to s33 of the Criminal Code, which provides:
Subject to the express provisions of this Code relating to self-defence, provocation, duress and coercion, a person is excused from criminal responsibility for an act or omission done or made under such circumstances of sudden and extraordinary emergency that an ordinary person similarly circumstanced would have acted in the same or similar way; and he is excused from criminal responsibility for an event resulting from such act or omission.
The appellant did not give evidence at his trial. However, he was interviewed by police and his record of interview was tendered by the prosecution. The learned Magistrate summarised the appellant's statement to the police as follows:
1.The defendant said that after knocking off work he had a "joint".
2.He went to John Alexopoulos' home to see if he had a job for the following day. Before leaving the premises he telephoned his girlfriend Rachel…

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 Lane and Hales

Details

AGLC: Lane and Hales [2000] NTSC 5
Case: [2000] NTSC 5
Decision Date: 28 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lane and Hales involved James Andrew Lane, the appellant, who was charged with damaging property belonging to John and Sara Alexopoulos. Lane pleaded not guilty and sought to rely on a defence of sudden and extraordinary emergency, claiming he was in a deluded state of mind at the time of the incident. The appellant argued that he broke the window in an attempt to seek help, believing he was being pursued by people trying to kill him. The central legal issues were whether Lane was entitled to the benefit of s35(2) of the Criminal Code, which provides for criminal responsibility in cases of delusions, and whether the defence of sudden and extraordinary emergency under s33 of the Code applied.

The court found that the learned Magistrate erred in drawing an adverse inference from Lane's failure to testify, which affected the findings on the delusional state of mind. The court held that the trial judge should not have inferred that Lane's silence implied guilt. The court also disagreed with the learned Magistrate's conclusion that self-induced intoxication precluded the application of the defence of sudden and extraordinary emergency. The court held that while voluntary intoxication is relevant, it does not entirely bar the defence. Finally, the court found that there was no error in the learned Magistrate's consideration of whether the delusions were substantially caused by marijuana or a pre-existing brain injury. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as Lane failed to establish all necessary elements to succeed.

Orders