Legal Research
Cases
R v Brian Lee (No.2)

R v Brian Lee (No.2)

Case [2019] NSWSC 586 20 May 2019

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brian Lee (No.2) [2019] NSWSC 586
Hearing dates: 20 May 2019
Date of orders: 20 May 2019
Decision date: 20 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Verdict:

Not guilty of the offence of murder on the grounds of mental illness.

Orders:
(1)   Order that Brian Lee be detained at the Metropolitan Reception and Remand Centre at Silverwater or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
(2)   Direct the Registrar of the Court to notify the Minister for Health of this judgment and order.
(3)   Direct the Registrar of the Court to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of this judgment and order and to provide to that Tribunal the following documentation:
(a)   a copy of these reasons for verdict and orders;
(b)   a transcript of these proceedings; and
(c)   a copy of each of the Exhibits tendered at the trial.
Catchwords: CRIME – Criminal liability — Mental illness defence – proved – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1990
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited: Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77; (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v Coles [2008] NSWSC 682
R v Huy Pham [2007] NSWSC 1313
R v Matusevich & Thompson [1976] VR 470
R v M'Naughten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1;(1933) 55 CLR 182
R v Rodriguez [2010] NSWSC 198
R v Winningham (unreported, NSWCCA, 10 May 1995)
Regina v Matheis (1958) 58 SR (NSW) 321
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 55; (1952) 86 CLR 358
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Brian Lee (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Robertson (Crown)
N Steel (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Sydney Criminal Defence Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/00013154
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment

By an Indictment presented on 2 October 2018, Brian Lee is accused of the murder of Klaus Petr, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1990.
The Accused, has pleaded not guilty to the murder of Mr Petr on 13 January 2018 at Hurstville, New South Wales.
Counsel for the Accused submits I should return a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness as provided for in s 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (“the Act”).
The Accused has elected to be tried without a jury: s 132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

Trial by judge alone

Where an Accused is tried without a jury, s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act imposes an obligations upon the trial Judge to set out in the judgment:

“… the principles of law applied by the Judge and the findings of fact on which the Judge…

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 Brian Lee (No.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Brian Lee (No.2) [2019] NSWSC 586
Case: [2019] NSWSC 586
Decision Date: 20 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brian Lee (No.2), the defendant, Brian Lee, was on trial for various criminal offences. The dispute centred on whether Lee could be held criminally liable for his actions given his mental illness at the time of the commission of the offences. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The court was required to decide whether Lee's mental illness at the time of the commission of the offences negated his criminal responsibility, and if so, what the appropriate legal consequences of this determination would be.

The central legal issue before the court was the applicability of the defence of mental illness in relation to the defendant's criminal liability. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Lee's mental illness at the time of the commission of the offences was such that it negated his criminal responsibility. This required the court to examine the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the defence of mental illness and its application to the facts of the case. Furthermore, the court had to consider the appropriate legal consequences of such a finding, including whether Lee should be found not guilty by reason of mental illness and, if so, what the appropriate orders should be in relation to his detention and treatment.

The High Court concluded that Lee's mental illness at the time of the commission of the offences did indeed negate his criminal responsibility. The court found that Lee was suffering from a severe mental illness which impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions, or to know that they were wrong. The court emphasised that the defence of mental illness is not limited to cases of complete insanity, but can also apply where the defendant's mental state significantly impairs their ability to form the requisite criminal intent. The court further found that the appropriate legal consequence of this determination was that Lee should be found not guilty by reason of mental illness, and that he should be detained in a secure mental health facility for treatment and rehabilitation. The court emphasised that this decision was not a matter of principle, but rather a specific application of the law to the unique facts of the case.

The High Court ordered that Brian Lee be found not guilty by reason of mental illness, and that he be detained in a secure mental health facility for treatment and rehabilitation. The court emphasised that this decision was based on the specific facts of the case, and did not set a precedent for the application of the defence of mental illness in other cases. The court also noted that the appropriate legal consequences of a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness will depend on the individual circumstances of each case, and may include orders for detention, treatment, and rehabilitation in a secure mental health facility.

Orders