R v Briggs - [2017] NSWSC 1685

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Briggs [2017] NSWSC 1685
Hearing dates: 5 December 2017
Date of orders: 06 December 2017
Decision date: 06 December 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) I find the accused Alex John Briggs not guilty of the murder of Vivienne Slessor on 19 August 2016 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 these orders and in doing so to provide each of them with
(a) a copy of the transcript of the proceedings before me;
(b) a copy of the exhibits tendered; and
(c) a copy of this judgment.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Offence – Murder – Mental illness – Where accused was son of the deceased – Where accused had suffered head injury some 17 years earlier – Evidence of pre-existing persecutory ideations and substance abuse disorder – Where accused had been admitted to psychiatric facility on two separate occasions – Accused diagnosed with schizophrenia by medical experts – Defence of mental illness made out – Accused found 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; [1961] ALR 137
R v Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
R v Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511
R v Lazarus [2017] NSWCCA 279
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; (2005) NSWCCA 226
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182, [1933] HCA 1
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Alex John Briggs - Accused
Representation:
Counsel:
L Shaw - Crown
I Nash - Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW – Crown
Legal Aid NSW – Accused

File Number(s): 2016/250460
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

INTRODUCTION

On 5 December 2017 Alexander John Briggs, whom I shall refer to as “the accused”, pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging that on or about 19 August 2016 at Forbes in the State of New South Wales he did murder Vivienne Slessor.
On 11 August 2017 the accused had elected to be tried by a judge alone in respect of that offence. A copy of his signed election pursuant to s. 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (“the CPA”) has been tendered and marked as Exhibit A.
A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury is not required to express all of the matters which would necessarily have to be stated to a jury unfamiliar with basic principles of law. However, s. 133(2) of the CPA requires…

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 Briggs

Details

AGLC: R v Briggs [2017] NSWSC 1685
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1685
Decision Date: 06 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Briggs involved the defendant, Briggs, who was accused of the murder of his father. Briggs had a history of mental health issues, including a previous head injury, substance abuse, and persecutory ideations. He had been admitted to a psychiatric facility on two separate occasions, where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. Briggs pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder, arguing that he was not guilty by reason of mental illness. The case came before the court to determine whether Briggs' mental illness could be considered a defence to the charge of murder.

The central legal issue the court had to decide was whether Briggs' mental illness at the time of the offence was such that he could not be held criminally responsible for his actions. This required the court to examine the evidence of Briggs' mental state, including his history of mental health issues, the nature and extent of his illness, and whether this illness was such that it could be considered a defence under the relevant legislation. The court had to determine whether Briggs' schizophrenia and associated persecutory delusions were of a sufficient nature to render him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act or knowing that it was wrong.

The court found that Briggs' mental illness was a significant factor in the offence. It accepted the evidence that Briggs suffered from schizophrenia, which had been present for some time before the offence. The court determined that his mental illness had impaired his ability to form the necessary intent to commit murder, and that at the time of the offence, he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong. Therefore, the court concluded that Briggs was not criminally responsible for the offence due to his mental illness and found him not guilty on the grounds of mental illness.

Orders