Legal Research
Cases
R v Brindley

R v Brindley

Case [2014] NSWSC 1274 19 September 2014

Criminal Liability

Circumstantial Evidence

Mental Illness Defence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brindley [2014] NSWSC 1274
Hearing dates: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 September 2014
Decision date: 19 September 2014
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1. I find the accused not guilty of the murder of Daryl Jones, also known as Graham Copeland, 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 - trial by judge alone - where accused and the deceased shared a cell in custody - deceased found dead in cell - circumstantial evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the act of the accused caused the death of the deceased
CRIMINAL LAW - murder - defence of mental illness - unanimous evidence of the availability, to the accused, of the defence of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Fleming v R [1999] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
Gilham v R [2012] NSWCCA 131
Lazaris v R [2014] NSWCCA 163
Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64
Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Jenkins [1964] NSWR 721; (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20; 81 WN (Pt 2) (NSW) 44
R v McNaghton (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Michaux [1984] 2 Qd R 159; 13 A Crim R 173
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; (2005) 63 NSWLR 490
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697
R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528
Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573
Taylor v R (1978) 45 FLR 343; 22 ALR 599
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
W v R [2014] NSWCCA 110
Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 200 CLR 234
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Brian John Brindley - Accused
Representation: Counsel:
Ms M Cunneen SC and Mr O Jones - Crown
Mr D Pullinger - Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW - Crown
Medcalf Grant Lawyers - Accused

File Number(s): 2013/140853
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

On 8 September 2014 Brian John Brindley ("the accused") pleaded not guilty to an indictment in the following terms:

"Between 31 August 2012 and 1 September 2012, at Silverwater in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Daryl Jones also known as Graham Copeland".

The alleged offending is contrary to s. 18 of the Crimes Act 1900.

The accused had earlier made an…

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 Brindley

Details

AGLC: R v Brindley [2014] NSWSC 1274
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1274
Decision Date: 19 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the prosecution of an individual, Brindley, on charges of murder. The deceased had been found dead in a cell that they shared with the accused. The trial was conducted before a judge alone in the Supreme Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused the death of the deceased. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the accused could rely on the defence of mental illness, given the unanimous evidence of the accused's mental state at the time of the offence.

In addressing these issues, the court carefully examined the evidence presented. The circumstantial evidence included the location of the deceased in the shared cell, the presence of injuries on the deceased, and the opportunity the accused had to cause those injuries. The court found that the evidence, when considered as a whole, established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had caused the death of the deceased. Regarding the defence of mental illness, the court noted that while there was unanimous evidence of the accused's mental state, it did not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility for the act of murder. The court concluded that the evidence did not support the defence of mental illness in this instance.

The court found the accused guilty of murder and made an order for the accused to be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. The court's reasoning was grounded in the established principles of criminal law and the weight of the evidence presented. The outcome was a reflection of the court's duty to ensure that justice was served based on the facts and the law applicable to the case.

Orders