R v Afele - [2014] NSWSC 366

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Iusi Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
Hearing dates: 31 March 2014
Decision date: 02 April 2014
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) I find the accused Iusi Afele not guilty of the murder of Steven Chesworth, on the grounds of mental illness.
(2) I order that the accused be detained, pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, in an appropriate correctional centre, or in such facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until he is released by due process of law.
(3) I direct the Registrar to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the orders I have made.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Where accused diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia - Where defence of mental illness raised - Where defence made out on the balance of probabilities - Accused not guilty on the grounds of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511
R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Jenkins [1964] NSWR 721; (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20; 81 WN (Pt 2) (NSW) 44
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399
R v Kesavarajah (1994) 74 A Crim R 100
R v McDonald [2012] NSWSC 875
R v McNaghton (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Michaux [1984] 2 Qd R 159; 13 A Crim R 173
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358
Taylor v R (1978) 45 FLR 343; 22 ALR 599
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Iusi Afele - Accused
Representation: Counsel:
Ms M Cinque - Crown
Mr E Wilson SC - Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
Legal Aid NSW - Accused

File Number(s): 2013/67850
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Iusi Afele ("the accused") has pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging that on 5 March 2013 at Bathurst in the state of New South Wales he murdered Steven Chesworth ("the deceased").

On 28 February 2014 counsel for the accused filed a notice of motion seeking a trial before a judge alone pursuant to provisions of s. 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The Crown consented to that application and I made orders accordingly.

The accused's trial took place before me on 31 March 2014. The Crown tendered, by consent, two volumes of documentary material which were marked exhibits "A" and "B". That material included medical evidence which raised a defence of mental illness.

In addition to the documentary material tendered by the Crown, I also heard oral evidence from two Forensic Psychiatrists, Dr Stephen Allnutt and Dr Richard Furst.

I record my thanks to both counsel for the…

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 R v Afele

Details

AGLC: R v Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
Case: [2014] NSWSC 366
Decision Date: 02 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Afele, the accused was charged with murder. The dispute centred on whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which would render them not guilty by reason of mental illness. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia. The key legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the accused was suffering from a mental illness, and if so, whether this illness rendered them not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court considered expert psychiatric evidence and the accused's behaviour both before and after the offence. The court concluded that the accused was indeed suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, specifically schizophrenia, and that this illness rendered them not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court found that the defence of mental illness was made out on the balance of probabilities.

The court's reasoning was based on the expert psychiatric evidence presented, which demonstrated that the accused was suffering from a severe mental illness at the time of the offence. This illness impaired their ability to understand the nature and quality of their act or that it was wrong. The court also considered the accused's behaviour before and after the offence, which was consistent with the symptoms of schizophrenia. The court determined that the accused's mental illness rendered them not guilty by reason of mental illness, as it was established on the balance of probabilities that the accused did not have the requisite mental capacity to be held criminally responsible for the offence. The court ordered that the accused be detained in a secure psychiatric facility.

Orders