R v Aller - [2015] NSWSC 178

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Aller [2015] NSWSC 178
Hearing dates: 01.12.14 – 04.12.14
Date of orders: 24 February 2015
Decision date: 24 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
On the limited evidence available the accused person committed an offence available as an alternative to the offence charged. The accused is found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – special hearing – murder – issue of substantial impairment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health Act 2007
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229, 227 A Crim R 217
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Michael John Aller (accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr K McKay (Crown)
Mr C Bruce SC (accused)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SE O’Connor – Legal Aid Commission (accused)

File Number(s): 2012/240127

REASONS FOR VERDICT

The accused, Michael John Aller, was committed to this court for trial upon a charge that he murdered Amy Aiton at Narara on 31 July 2012. Because of mental illness he is unfit to stand his trial. A special hearing, pursuant to s 19 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, has been conducted before me, sitting without a jury. My task is to determine whether, on the limited evidence available, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the offence charged or, alternatively, the offence of manslaughter.
About 2 months before Ms Aiton met her death, she and the accused commenced an intimate relationship and he moved into her townhouse in Narara, near Gosford. It is not in dispute that in the afternoon of 31 July 2012 he killed her by stabbing her repeatedly with a kitchen knife during an argument. He placed the bloodstained knife into a knife block in the kitchen, changed his clothes, and drove to Gosford in Ms Aiton's car. He travelled by train to Sydney, where he spent the night drinking at a hotel in the CBD.
At about 9.45am on 1 August, he rang his mother, who lived in Orange, on a payphone and asked her to call the police and direct them to the townhouse as he had "just stabbed Amy to death." His mother did so. Towards the middle of the day he made another call to his mother's home, which was answered by his step-brother. He repeated to his step-brother that he had killed Ms Aiton, asking whether he should give himself up. His step-brother said that he should. At about 2pm he approached a uniformed police officer at Central Railway Station, saying that he needed to speak with someone and that he was wanted for the murder of his girlfriend. He was arrested and conveyed to Surry Hills Police Station.
At about 10am the same day police attended Ms Aiton's townhouse, where they found her lying on her bed facedown, covered with a blanket. They located the bloodstained knife in…

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 Aller

Details

AGLC: R v Aller [2015] NSWSC 178
Case: [2015] NSWSC 178
Decision Date: 24 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Aller involved the respondent, Aller, who was charged with murder. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to decide whether Aller's mental condition at the time of the offence resulted in a substantial impairment of his mental functions. The trial judge had directed the jury that Aller was not guilty by reason of insanity, and the conviction was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct, and if the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to quash the conviction was appropriate.

The court examined the statutory framework governing insanity as a defence in murder cases, specifically section 304(2)(a) of the Criminal Code. The court noted that the definition of 'substantial impairment' was not provided in the statute, and the meaning had to be inferred from the context and purpose of the legislation. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct, and the definition of 'substantial impairment' should be interpreted as a significant or major impairment of mental functions. The court found that the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the issue of insanity, and the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in quashing the conviction.

The High Court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct and that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in quashing the conviction. The court reinstated the conviction for murder and ordered that Aller be re-sentenced. The court emphasised the importance of the jury's role in determining the facts of the case, including the respondent's mental state at the time of the offence. The court also highlighted the need for trial judges to provide clear and accurate directions to the jury on complex legal issues such as insanity.

Orders