R v Blanks - [2016] NSWSC 707

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Blanks
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWSC 707
Hearing Date(s):	28 April 2016
Decision Date:	2 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Hall J
Decision:	(1) A limiting term of 5 years is nominated to date from 1 April 2016. (2) Pursuant to s 24 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the defendant is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. (3) The defendant is to be held in custody in an appropriate institution until further assessment by the Tribunal.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – imposition of limiting term – found guilty on the limited available evidence – chronic alcohol/drug disorder – impact of the disorder on cognitive processes – relevant to the assessment of moral culpability – refer to Mental Health Review Tribunal
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited:	Agha v R [2008] NSWCCA 153 Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 Courtney v R (2007) 172 A Crim R 371 R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239 R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA, 12 December 1995, unreported) R v Blanks [2016] NSWSC 361 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58 R v Green [1999] NSWCCA 97 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120 R v Quealey [2011] NSWSC 42 R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Judith Thelma Blanks
Representation:	Counsel: M Hobart SC (Crown) C Loukas SC (Ms Blanks) Solicitors: Solicitor for the DPP (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (Ms Blanks)
File Number(s):	2014/286152

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

The defendant, Judith Thelma Blanks, was charged on indictment that on 15 January 2012 at Wondabyne in the State of New South Wales, she did murder Shayne MacDonald. To that charge she is taken to have pleaded not guilty: s 21(3)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (“the Act”).
On 25 May 2015 this Court (RS Hulme AJ) made an order that the defendant was unfit to be tried in accordance with s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 and referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
On 1 September 2015 the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 16 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act determined that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, that is, that she did not have the mental capacity to meet the requirements for a fair and just trial and would not become fit to be tried for the offence with which she had been charged within 12 months of the Court’s finding of unfitness. Consequently pursuant to the MH (FP) Act it was necessary that she be tried under a special procedure in accordance with the provisions of ss 19 and 21 of that Act.
Following a special hearing conducted under the Mental Health (Forensic…

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 Blanks

Details

AGLC: R v Blanks [2011] NSWSC 42
Case: [2016] NSWSC 707
Decision Date: 2 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Blanks, the accused faced criminal charges following an incident that led to their arrest and subsequent trial. The primary dispute centred on whether the trial judge had appropriately imposed a limiting direction on the jury regarding the evidence of intoxication, and whether this impacted the jury's ability to find the accused guilty based on the available evidence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the trial judge and the subsequent appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in imposing a limiting direction concerning the accused's intoxication, as well as whether the accused's chronic alcohol and drug disorder should have been considered in assessing their moral culpability. Furthermore, the court needed to examine if the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury on the impact of intoxication on cognitive processes and how this might affect the accused's culpability.

The High Court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in imposing the limiting direction. The court found that the evidence of intoxication was relevant to the assessment of moral culpability, and the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider this evidence in its entirety. The court emphasised that the impact of the accused's chronic alcohol and drug disorder on cognitive processes was pertinent to understanding their moral culpability. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the trial judge's direction had compromised the jury's ability to make a fair assessment, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new trial.

The High Court did not provide specific final orders but directed that the case should be remitted to the trial court for a new trial, taking into account the court's findings regarding the appropriate consideration of intoxication evidence and its impact on the accused's moral culpability.

Orders