R v Cawte - [2018] SASC 182

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CAWTE
[2018] SASC 182
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
13 December 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
The defendant was charged with having murdered his twin brother, Jake Cawte, on 3 March 2017. He pleaded not guilty by reason of mental incompetence.
The prosecution conceded that the defendant was mentally incompetent at the time of the conduct the subject of the charged offence. The defendant and prosecution requested by agreement that the Court record a finding that the objective element of the offence of murder is established.
The defendant elected for both issues to be determined by a Judge sitting without a jury. The Court proceeded pursuant to section 269F of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and determined first the issue of mental competence. The Court considered all relevant witness statements and forensic psychiatric reports provided by the parties.
Held:
1.       on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the incident resulting in the death of his brother, the defendant was suffering from a mental impairment, namely a mental illness, and as a consequence, did not know that his conduct was wrong;
2.       beyond reasonable doubt, the objective element of murder has been established;
3.       the defendant is not guilty of the offence of murder on the grounds of mental incompetence; and
4.       the defendant is liable to supervision and is subject to a limiting term of life.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269A, s 269B, s 269C, s 269D, s 269F, s 269FA, s 269FB, s 269O, s 269Q, s 269R, s 269T, Pt 8A; Criminal Law Consolidation (Mental Impairment) Amendment Act 2017 (SA), referred to.

R v CAWTE
[2018] SASC 182
Criminal
NICHOLSON J.
Introduction

Lucas Brian Timothy Cawte (Mr Cawte) was charged with having murdered his twin brother, Jake Cawte (the deceased), on 3 March 2017.
At approximately 10.45am that day, Mr Cawte attended at the Christies Beach Police Station and admitted having shot his brother at the address where they were both living, that his brother was dead and that Mr Cawte had been planning to shoot his brother “for weeks … to save him … from God”. The police immediately attended at the address provided by Mr Cawte and located the body of his brother. The cause of death was determined to be shotgun wounds to the head. There was a double barrel shotgun leaning up against the bed and a shotgun shell on the floor near the shotgun. There were no other persons located inside the house.
Mr Cawte admitted killing his brother. However, he pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of mental incompetence. Mr Cawte, through his counsel, elected to have both the issue of mental competence and the issue of whether or not the objective element for the…

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 Cawte

Details

AGLC: R v Cawte [2018] SASC 182
Case: [2018] SASC 182
Decision Date: 13 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cawte involves the defendant, Mr Cawte, who admitted to shooting and killing his twin brother. The central issue was whether Mr Cawte was guilty of murder or if he could be acquitted on the grounds of mental incompetence. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The prosecution presented witness statements from various family members, police, medical experts, and forensic science experts to establish the objective element of the offence of murder. The defence agreed that the objective element of the offence was established, but argued that Mr Cawte was not guilty of murder due to his mental incompetence at the time of the killing.

The court had to determine whether Mr Cawte was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing and, if so, whether this illness rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was wrong. The court had to consider the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence to make a finding on the balance of probabilities regarding Mr Cawte's mental state at the time of the killing. The court also had to consider whether there was any reasonable possibility that the killing was lawful.

After considering the evidence, the court found Mr Cawte not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental incompetence. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Cawte had been suffering from a mental illness at the time of the killing and that this illness rendered him incapable of knowing that his conduct was wrong. The court declared Mr Cawte liable to supervision and made a supervision order pursuant to section 269O, setting a limiting term of life. The court also ordered that further reports be obtained and adjourned the matter for further consideration. Mr Cawte has been detained in a forensic psychiatric institution since 6 March 2017, and it will be a matter for further determination whether he may be released from or permitted periodic release from the institution in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

NICHOLSON J

At the hearing on 9 August 2018, counsel for the Director identified the witness statements that the Director relied upon as relevant to the question of mental impairment and also as establishing beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Cawte committed the objective element for the offence of murder. Those witness statements included a number from various family members, numerous police statements, a statement from an officer of the South Australian Ambulance Service, a series of forensic science expert witness statements and a series of medical expert witness statements. Mr Cawte, both personally to the police and through his counsel in Court, has admitted that he shot and killed his twin brother with the shotgun that is in evidence. There is nothing in the prosecution witness statements to cast doubt on the reliability of that admission and much that is consistent with or supportive of its reliability. The prosecution and the defence, by agreement, have asked the Court to record a finding pursuant to subsection 269FB(2) that the objective element of the offence is established. On 9 August 2018, for the reasons just briefly summarised, I made that finding beyond reasonable doubt. I was also satisfied that the evidence did not give rise to any reasonable possibility that the killing was lawful.Conclusion At the conclusion of the hearing on 9 August 2018, I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the objective element of murder had been established. I was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Cawte had been suffering from a mental illness at the time he killed his brother and that, as a consequence, he did not know that his conduct was wrong. I found Mr Cawte not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental incompetence. I declared Mr Cawte liable to supervision and made a supervision order pursuant to section 269O and set a limiting term of life. I also ordered that further reports, as required under Part 8A of the Act, be obtained and adjourned the matter for further consideration. Mr Cawte has been detained in the forensic psychiatric institution, James Nash House, since 6 March 2017. It will be a matter for further determination as to whether, and if so the extent to which, Mr Cawte might in the future be released from or permitted periodic release from James Nash House in accordance with conditions of licence.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: NICHOLSON J

Full text does not contain this section.