Legal Research
Cases
R v Cheatham

R v Cheatham

Case [2002] NSWCCA 360 29 August 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Cheatham [2002] NSWCCA 360

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60461/01

HEARING DATE(S): 28 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Stephen Darcy Cheatham

JUDGMENT OF: Smart AJ at 1; Beazley JA at 137; Bell J at 147

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70058/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Grove J

COUNSEL : (A) R D Ellis
(C) P R Boulten

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Directions as to Diminished Responsibility adequate - Discussion of directions to be given - No points taken at trial by experienced senior counsel - critical issues left to jury - Sentencing - Allowance for mental illness and sentence being served in protection.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s.23A(1)
Criminal Appeal Rules

CASES CITED:
R v Ryan (1995) 90 A Crim R 191 at 195
R v Gieselmann CCA 12 November 1996
R v Wilde (1988) 164 CLR 365 at 373
R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 at 403
R v Chayna (1993) 66 A Crim R 178 at 179
R v Tumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 149 at 159
R v Turnbull (1977) 65 Cr App R 242
R v Spriggs [1958] 1 QB 270
R v Trotter (1993) 68 A Crim R 536 at 537
Azzopardi & Davis (2001) 119 A Crim R 8 at 22
H M Advocate v Braithwaite 1945 SC (J) 55
R v Champion (1992) 64 A Crim R 244 at 254
R v Letteri CCA, unrep. 18 March 1992
R v AB (1999) 198 CLR 111 at 152
R v Davies (1978) 68 Cr App R 319
R v Perez-Vargas (1986) 8 NSWLR 559 at 563
R v Gardiner [2002] NSWCCA 209
R v Bus, unrep. NSWCCA 3 November 1995
R v Elchami, unrep NSWCCA 15 December 1995
R v Jarman [2001] NSWCCA 178

DECISION: See para 136

60461/01

SPIGELMAN CJ

BELL J

SMART AJ

Thursday, 29 August 2002

REGINA v STEPHEN DARCY CHEATHAM

JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ: Stephen Darcy Cheatham appeals against his convictions for murdering his wife and his elder daughter and his conviction for wounding his younger daughter with intent to murder her. He also seeks leave to appeal against the sentences which he received, namely, 24 years imprisonment for murdering his wife with a non-parole period of 16 years, 16 years imprisonment for the murder of his elder daughter (with no non-parole period fixed) and 12 years imprisonment for wounding with intent to murder his younger daughter (with no non-parole period). All sentences were to date from 6 March 1998 and be served concurrently.

2. Although the appellant has appealed against his conviction for wounding with intent to murder, none of his grounds of appeal addressed that conviction. At the trial the substance of the Crown case was not in issue. The primary issue was whether the appellant had established upon the balance of probabilities that he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental illness. The jury…

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 Cheatham

Details

AGLC: R v Cheatham [2002] NSWCCA 360
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 360
Decision Date: 29 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cheatham involved the defendant, Cheatham, who faced a charge related to criminal conduct. The court that dealt with the case was the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction. The primary issue in the case was whether the directions given to the jury regarding the concept of diminished responsibility were adequate. The defendant's legal team argued that the directions did not sufficiently address the nuances of diminished responsibility, potentially affecting the jury's understanding and decision-making process.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of the law concerning diminished responsibility in criminal cases. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were comprehensive enough to allow them to properly consider this defence. The defendant's legal counsel contended that the directions were inadequate and did not sufficiently highlight the critical factors that should be considered when assessing diminished responsibility. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the directions were adequate given the circumstances of the trial and the points raised by experienced senior counsel.

In its reasoning, the court examined the trial judge's directions and the submissions made by both parties. The court noted that, while there may have been some room for improvement in the directions, the experienced senior counsel representing the defendant did not raise any specific points of concern during the trial. The court also highlighted that the critical issues surrounding diminished responsibility were effectively left to the jury's consideration. As such, the court concluded that the directions were adequate for the purposes of the trial. The sentencing aspect was also considered, with the court taking into account the defendant's mental illness and the fact that he was serving a sentence in a protected environment.

Orders