Miller v R - [2024] NSWCCA 51

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Miller v R [2024] NSWCCA 51
Hearing dates: 5 April 2024
Date of orders: 12 April 2024
Decision date: 12 April 2024
Before: Bell CJ; Harrison CJ at CL and Sweeney J
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal against conviction.
2. Allow the appeal against conviction.
3. Quash the conviction for murder and the sentence passed.
4. On the charge that the applicant did on 20 June 2020 murder Emerald Wardle, the Court returns a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.
5. Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), order that Jordan Brodie Miller be detained in a correctional facility, or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until he is released by due process of law.
6. Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive ImpairmentForensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), refer Jordan Brodie Miller to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
7. Direct the Registrar to notify the Minister for Health, as soon as practicable, of the making of these orders by this Court and the terms of this judgment.
8. Direct the Registrar to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal, as soon as practicable, of the terms of these orders and to provide to the Tribunal the following documentation:
i. A copy of the judgment of this Court and its orders
ii. A transcript of the hearing of these proceedings
iii. The transcript of the trial
iv. Copies of the exhibits from the trial including the reports of Dr Nielssen and Professor Greenberg
v. A copy of the expert reports tendered in these proceedings by Dr Rae, Dr Nielssen and Dr Eagle
vi. A copy of the Victim Impact Statements read during these proceedings.
9. Direct the Registrar to notify Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network, as soon as practicable, of the orders of the Court and verdict of the Court in this matter and to provide to Justice Health copies of the following documents:
i. A copy of the reasons of this Court for its verdict and orders
ii. Copies of the reports of Dr Nielssen, Professor Greenberg, Dr Rae and Dr Eagle.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction and sentence — Murder
MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings — Defence of mental health impairment — Special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible — Where applicant diagnosed with schizophrenia after conviction

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Carter v R [2019] NSWCCA 11
Masters v R [2022] NSWCCA 228
R v Abou-Chabake [2004] NSWCCA 356

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jordan Miller (Applicant)
Rex (Crown) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Wilson SC (Applicant)
G Newton SC and J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)

File Number(s):

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 Miller v R

Details

AGLC: Miller v R [2024] NSWCCA 51
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 51
Decision Date: 12 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miller v R involved the appellant, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant appealed against both his conviction and sentence, claiming that he was not criminally responsible due to a mental health impairment at the time of the offence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the appellant's schizophrenia, which was diagnosed after his conviction, should have resulted in a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible. The central legal issue was whether the appellant's mental health condition, diagnosed post-conviction, should have been considered in the original trial and whether it impacted his criminal responsibility.

The court examined the principles of criminal responsibility in the context of mental health impairments and the legal framework for special verdicts in murder cases. It was noted that the appellant had not raised the defence of mental health impairment during the trial, and the trial judge had not been aware of the appellant's condition. The court further analysed the provisions of the Criminal Code, which allow for a special verdict when the accused's mental state negates criminal responsibility. The court also considered the appellant's post-conviction diagnosis and the potential implications for the original trial. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant's mental health condition was not known at the time of the trial, and the trial judge could not have considered it. However, the court held that the appellant's schizophrenia did not negate his criminal responsibility, as it did not impair his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong.

The court concluded that the appellant's conviction and sentence should stand, as the special verdict of not criminally responsible did not apply in this case. The court acknowledged the appellant's mental health condition but found that it did not absolve him of criminal responsibility for the murder. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering mental health impairments in criminal proceedings, but also underscored the need for such conditions to be known and raised at the appropriate time.

Orders