Criminal Law—Insanity—No medical evidence adduced—Evidence of condition of delirium tremens—Insufficient to found defence of insanity—Direction to jury—No duty to inform jury of consequences of verdict.

Decision

June 2.
THE COURT delivered the following written judgment:-
The appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory on 8th August 1968 of the offences of attempted murder and attempted rape. He was sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for eight years for the attempted murder and for five years for the attempted rape, the sentences to be served concurrently and to commence from 23rd September 1968, the date they were imposed. (at p173)

2. He now applies for an extension of time in which to appeal on a point of law and for leave to appeal in respect of some matters of fact or of mixed fact and law and against sentence. In case such an extension should be granted, he has lodged a notice of appeal and notices of motion for leave to appeal. (at p173)

3. The facts evidenced in support of the indictment were few and undisputed. The defences were an absence of intent in the case of each charge due to the state of intoxication in which the applicant appears to have been at the relevant time and insanity at the time of the performance of the acts constituting the offences, again due to alcholic excesses. (at p173)

4. Apart from a complaint as to the emphasis given by the learned trial judge to some facts - a matter which even if made out would not lead us in this case to grant the requisite leave to appeal - the only submissions made as to the summing up were, firstly, that the trial judge had not canvassed with the jury all the statements of the appellant, which if accepted by the jury could, so it was claimed, have founded a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Secondly, that the trial judge had not informed the jury of, and had not explained to them, the consequences of such a verdict : thirdly, that, although his Honour had directed the jury properly as to the ingredients of insanity as a defence, his failure to discuss the evidence which, as counsel claimed, tended to establish insanity and to relate that evidence to the legal elements of insanity, amounted to a failure adequately to instruct the jury on that defence. (at p173)

5. The material on which the appellant relied as establishing insanity comprised firstly and perhaps pre-eminently the claim that due to an excessive consumption of methylated spirits he was in a state of delirium tremens at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offences and, secondly, some statements attributed to him which it was said indicated a lack of comprehension of events that were taking place. No medical evidence…

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 Lucas v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lucas v The Queen [1970] HCA 14
Case: [1970] HCA 14
Decision Date: 2 June 1970

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Lucas v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant, Lucas, had been found guilty of the murder of a police officer during an attempted robbery. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury.

The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the appellant under duress, and whether the judge's summing up to the jury adequately explained the relevant legal principles, particularly concerning the issue of intent. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of the rule against admitting evidence obtained by unlawful or unfair means, and the proper direction to a jury on the mental element required for murder.

The Court held that the evidence obtained from the appellant should have been excluded because it was obtained in circumstances that rendered it inadmissible. The judges reasoned that the unfairness of the means by which the evidence was obtained outweighed its probative value. Furthermore, the Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury on the issue of intent were insufficient, failing to adequately explain the concept of *mens rea* in the context of murder. The jury had not been properly guided on how to consider the appellant's state of mind at the time of the offence.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

Orders