McHenry v The State of Western Australia [No 2]

The case of McHenry v The State of Western Australia [No 2] involved the appellant, McHenry, who had previously been convicted of a criminal offence. McHenry sought to appeal his conviction on the basis of new psychiatric evidence that he was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Western Australia. The central issue for the court was whether the new psychiatric evidence, which was not challenged by the state, should lead to a judgment of acquittal on the grounds of unsoundness of mind or a retrial of the case.

The court considered whether the unchallengeable psychiatric evidence was sufficient to establish that McHenry was of unsound mind at the time of the offence. It was noted that the evidence provided by the expert witness was unequivocal and detailed, suggesting that McHenry's mental state rendered him incapable of understanding the nature of his actions or forming a rational judgment. The court held that the unchallengeable nature of the evidence constituted a significant factor in favour of finding that McHenry was indeed of unsound mind. Given the strength and clarity of the psychiatric evidence, the court found that a judgment of acquittal was the appropriate course of action. This decision was based on the premise that a retrial would be unjust given the clear evidence of McHenry's unsoundness of mind at the time of the offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the proper outcome was to enter a judgment of acquittal for McHenry. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that justice is served, particularly in cases where the accused's mental state at the time of the offence is in question. By entering a judgment of acquittal, the court aimed to rectify the injustice that would result from a retrial, where McHenry's unsoundness of mind was not disputed. The appeal was therefore successful, and the court ordered a judgment of acquittal in favour of McHenry.