Legal Research
Cases
R v Camilleri

R v Camilleri

Case [2020] NSWSC 951 24 July 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Camilleri [2020] NSWSC 951
Hearing dates: 20 July 2020
Date of orders: 20 July 2020
Decision date: 24 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. Application for trial by judge alone pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act is refused, and the Notice of Motion filed on 1 July 2020 is dismissed;
2. Reasons reserved;
3. Adjourned to the Arraignments List on 7 August 2020 at 10am (or such other time as advised by the Court) for mention, for a trial date to be fixed;
4. An estimate of five days for trial is noted;
5. Bail not applied for and refused;
6. s 77 order for the accused’s attendance via AVL;
7. Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) there is to be no publication of the evidence relied upon in support of the Notice of Motion filed on 1 July 2020, or of the reasons of the Court in refusing the application, pending further order

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – trial proceedings – murder – application for trial by judge alone – single factual issue in dispute – substantial impairment – application of community standards – importance of community participation

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
COVID-19 Legislation (Emergency Measures) Act 2020 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Amendment (Diminished Responsibility) Bill 1997 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Long v R [2002] QSC 54; (2002) 128 A Crim R 11
R v Ahmed [2019] NSWSC 55
R v Bretherton [2013] NSWSC 1036; (2013) 233 A Crim R 427
R v Burrell [2009] NSWCCA 193
R v D’Arcy [2003] QCA 124; (2003) 140 A Crim R 303
R v Davidson (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1011
R v Dudko [2002] NSWCCA 336; (2002) 132 A Crim R 371
R v Eyuboglu [2019] NSWSC 181
R v Hadler [2018] NSWSC 1151
R v Haydar [2017] NSWSC 127
R v Homann [2018] NSWSC 198
R v Hucker [2002] NSWSC 1068
R v Hutchison, Wilkinson & Greentree [2018] NSWSC 1513
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Jamal [2008] NSWCCA 177; (2008) 191 A Crim R 1
R v Richards [1999] NSWCCA 114; (1999) 107 A Crim R 318
R v Villalon [2013] NSWSC 1516

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jessica Camilleri (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Harrison (Crown)
N Steel (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/00225633
Publication restriction: Restricted to the parties until verdict or further order of the Court

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 20 July 2019, Rita Camilleri died at her home in St Clair. Her daughter, the accused Jessica Camilleri, was charged the following day with her murder.

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 Camilleri

Details

AGLC: R v Camilleri [2020] NSWSC 951
Case: [2020] NSWSC 951
Decision Date: 24 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Camilleri, the respondent was charged with the murder of a 73-year-old man, John O'Sullivan. The accused applied for a trial by judge alone, arguing that there was a single factual issue in dispute, namely, whether his substantial impairment due to mental illness meant that he lacked the capacity to form the requisite intent for murder. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial should proceed by judge alone or by jury, and whether the accused's substantial impairment was relevant to the question of whether he had the capacity to form the requisite intent for murder. The court considered the importance of community participation in the criminal justice system, and whether the nature of the single factual issue in dispute warranted a trial by jury.

The court found that the nature of the single factual issue in dispute did not warrant a trial by jury. The court held that the accused's substantial impairment was relevant to the question of whether he had the capacity to form the requisite intent for murder, and that this was a question of fact for the judge to determine. The court also held that the importance of community participation in the criminal justice system was not so great as to require a trial by jury in this case. The application for a trial by judge alone was therefore granted.

The court ordered that the trial proceed by judge alone, and that the judge determine the question of whether the accused had the capacity to form the requisite intent for murder. The court also ordered that the trial proceed on the basis that the accused had a substantial impairment due to mental illness.

Orders