R v Changan - [2001] VSC 30

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1445 of 2000

THE QUEEN

DAVID GANESH CHANGAN

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF RULING:	7 FEBRUARY 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 30

---

CATCHWORDS: Evidence – Ambit of expertise of medical witness – Provocation – Whether issue raised on evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. B. Kayser	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. J. Kaufman	McNamaras

HIS HONOUR:

Several preliminary issues have arisen for consideration in this trial.

In terms of the background facts there would appear to be no dispute that the accused killed the deceased on 19 August 1999. The deceased was physically assaulted and was then the recipient of a number of stab wounds. The cause of death was an incised wound to the front of the neck which severed the larynx, the right carotid artery and the right jugular vein.

It was submitted by counsel for the accused, Mr Kaufman, that the circumstances leading up to the slaying raised the issue of provocation for the consideration of the jury. Further, as part of the material bearing upon that question, the evidence of a Dr Gary Murdoch as to the accused's mental state at about the time of the killing was relevant and admissible.

In response to that aspect of the defence submission, Mr Kayser, on behalf of the Crown, argued that Dr Murdoch did not possess the necessary expertise to express any psychiatric diagnosis, even if this could be regarded as relevant to the provocation issue.

In the course of argument, I was referred both to statements made by Dr Murdoch and his cross-examination when called by the Crown at the committal proceedings. In both the initial statement and in cross-examination, Dr Murdoch, who describes himself as a general practitioner, eschews any expertise in the field of psychiatry. Indeed, his statement at p.287 of the depositions reads:

"Apart from my undergraduate training, I have no formal qualifications in psychiatry. Although I have previously given evidence in court proceedings I have never given expert testimony as to the mental state of a defendant in a criminal case. I am not familiar with the McNaghten rules."

Nonetheless, he purports to offer opinions that at a consultation on 16 August 1999 the accused was "temporarily insane". This categorization is explained later in these terms (and this appears at p.289 of the depositions):

"My definition of insanity is of a psychological response significantly out of proportion to what should reasonably be expected in response to normal life stresses and is not used to identify any precise medical or legal definition of insanity."

At an interview with the accused on 19 August at about 4 p.m. At the Deniliquin Police Station (at a time subsequent to the killing), Dr Murdoch repeated this diagnosis and volunteered the phrase "not found to be of sound mind". I must say that, on the face of it, this is not manifest in the subsequent…

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 Changan

Details

AGLC: R v Changan [2001] VSC 30
Case: [2001] VSC 30
Decision Date: 7 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Changan involved a criminal appeal where the defendant contested the sufficiency of the evidence leading to their conviction. The dispute centred on the admissibility of expert evidence from a medical professional and whether the issue of provocation was adequately raised during the trial. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether the medical expert's testimony was within the scope of their expertise and if it was relevant to the issue of provocation. The appellant argued that the medical evidence was improperly admitted and that the trial judge failed to properly consider the issue of provocation, which was not explicitly raised by the defence. The prosecution contended that the medical evidence was both relevant and within the scope of the expert's expertise, and that the trial judge had adequately considered all the evidence presented, including any implications of provocation.

The court found that the medical expert's testimony was relevant and appropriately within the bounds of their expertise, affirming that the trial judge's assessment of this evidence was correct. Regarding the issue of provocation, the court concluded that while the defence did not explicitly raise provocation as a distinct legal defence, the trial judge had still considered the evidence in the context of this potential defence. The court held that the trial judge's approach was sufficient, and therefore, the conviction was upheld.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction. The reasoning and outcome focused on the proper use of expert evidence and the adequacy of the trial judge's consideration of the evidence, including the issue of provocation.

Orders