Lisa Joy BEATTIE v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 184

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Lisa Joy BEATTIE v R [2008] NSWCCA 184

HEARING DATE(S): 1 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 September 2008

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 2; Hislop J at 36

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against verdict after special hearing - maliciously wound with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm - maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm - special hearing under s 19 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure Act) - whether misdirection in respect of specific intent - appellant suffering from mental illness - whether verdict unreasonable and/or unsupported by evidence - appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500

PARTIES: Lisa Joy BEATTIE (Appellant)
REGINA (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/2933

COUNSEL: A Haesler SC & J Manuell (Appellant)
P Miller (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission) (Appellant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/0160

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nicholson DCJ

2007/2933

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
HISLOP J
Tuesday 2 September 2008

Lisa BEATTIE v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Simpson J.

2 SIMPSON J: This is an appeal against a verdict under s 22 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (“the Act”).

Background

3 On 21 January 2006 the appellant was arrested and charged with an offence of malicious wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and, in the alternative, an offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm.

4 On 30 August 2006, following an enquiry pursuant to s 12 of the Act, Robison DCJ found that the appellant was unfit to be tried (s 14). In accordance with the requirements of s 14, he referred the appellant to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). On 8 December 2006 the Tribunal determined, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant would not, within the 12 months following the finding of unfitness, become fit to be tried. The Tribunal therefore (as required by subss 16(3) and (4)) notified the District Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”) of its determination.

5 The DPP having decided that further proceedings would be taken, a special hearing into the charges was, by s 19 of the Act, required to be conducted. That special hearing commenced on 26 March 2007 before Nicholson DCJ. Allegations in the same terms as those originally charged were made, in the alternative, under s 33 and s 35(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (both since repealed and re-enacted in different language). On 28 March 2007 Nicholson DCJ delivered a verdict, under s 22 of the Act, that, on the limited evidence available, the appellant committed the principal offence alleged (the s 33 offence). By s 22(3)(c)…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lisa Joy BEATTIE v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWCCA 184
Decision Date: 2 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Joy Beattie, the appellant, faced the Crown in an appeal against a verdict handed down after a special hearing under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act. The dispute centred on the appellant's conviction for inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent and for inflicting grievous bodily harm maliciously. The High Court of Australia was the forum for this significant appeal, where Beattie sought to challenge the correctness of her conviction and sentence. The crux of the appeal was the contention that the trial judge had misdirected the jury concerning the specific intent required for the offence of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent. Additionally, Beattie argued that her mental illness should have been considered in a way that might have led to a different outcome.

The court was tasked with determining whether there had been a misdirection by the trial judge regarding the specific intent required for the offence, and if so, whether this error was sufficiently substantial to warrant a new trial. Another critical issue was whether Beattie's mental health condition should have influenced the jury's assessment of her actions and intent. The court also had to consider whether the verdict reached was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence, especially given Beattie's mental illness.

The court examined the trial judge's directions to the jury and found no misdirection that would warrant a new trial. It was held that the trial judge had correctly outlined the necessary intent for the offences, and the jury's verdict was consistent with the evidence presented. The court also considered Beattie's mental illness but found that it did not negate the jury's ability to properly assess her actions and intent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original conviction and sentence.

Orders