R v CJ - [2013] NSWDC 40

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v CJ [2013] NSWDC 40
Hearing dates: 25,26,27 February, 4,5, March 2013
Decision date: 14 March 2013
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Judge Williams
Decision:
Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness

Catchwords:
Judge alone trial - 21 sexual offences by a female offender against juveniles - mental illness - facts not disputed - issue of bipolar disorder - issue of wrongness - competing psychiatric opinions - relevance of DSM IV

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act
Civil Liability Act
Crimes Act

Cases Cited:
R v M'Naghten (1833) 8 ER 718
R v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266
R v Fernando [2011] NSWSC 1556
R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182
Sodeman v R [1936] 55 CLR 192
R v Weeks [1993] 66 A Crim R 466
Willgoss v R (1960) 105 CLR 295
R v Codere (1916) Cr App R 21
R v Hodges (1985) 19 A Crim R 129

Texts Cited:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM IV),
Crime and Mental Health Law in NSW Howard & Westmore
NSW Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
CJ
Representation:
DPP: Ms S Herbert ,
Def: Mr R Cavanaugh
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Baker & Borthwick, Tuncurry

File Number(s): 2010/17430 2010/00017810
Publication restriction: A non-publication order applies to anything that might identify any complainant or other young person or the school from which they came.

Judgment

NB:- A non-publication order applies to anything that might identify any complainant or other young person or the school from which they came.

This is a retrial after a successful conviction appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal (CJ v R [2012] NSWCCA 258, Hall J, Beasley JA & Campbell J agreeing). I do not have nor have I read the transcript of the first trial nor have I been asked to by either party. I have read the judgement of the CCA.
The accused admits the ingredients of the 21 offences on the indictment but not necessarily that the statement of facts tendered by the crown, fully reflects what happened in each particular instance. Whilst I agree with that, it is not really appropriate to set out a fuller exposé of the facts because to do so is both unhelpful to the reader and would make this judgement excessively lengthy. However, as I state later, it is necessary to read the various interviews of the complainants and other young persons to gain a fuller understanding of what was going on and the accused's mental state at the time. Each offence was one of sexual assault of some description on young boys aged between 11 and 12. Within the 21 offences there are 14 offences that occurred with more than the one victim.
In each case the defence is one of not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
If it is…

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 CJ

Details

AGLC: R v CJ [2013] NSWDC 40
Case: [2013] NSWDC 40
Decision Date: 14 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v CJ, the defendant was charged with 21 offences, including sexual offences against children, and was tried by a judge alone. The facts of the case were not in dispute, with the only issue being the defendant's mental state at the time of the offences. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's bipolar disorder constituted a mental illness within the meaning of the relevant legislation, and whether she was aware of the wrongness of her actions. This required the court to consider competing psychiatric opinions and the relevance of the DSM IV in determining the defendant's mental state.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant legal principles. It found that the defendant's bipolar disorder did constitute a mental illness, and that she was not aware of the wrongness of her actions due to her mental illness. The court also considered the relevance of the DSM IV in determining the defendant's mental state, and found that it was not determinative of the issue. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant was not guilty of the offences due to her mental illness.

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles. The court found that the defendant's bipolar disorder met the criteria for a mental illness under the relevant legislation, and that she was not aware of the wrongness of her actions due to her mental illness. The court also found that the DSM IV was not determinative of the issue, and that the evidence presented by both parties was relevant in determining the defendant's mental state.

The final order of the court was that the defendant was not guilty of the offences due to her mental illness. The court found that the evidence presented established the defendant's mental illness and lack of awareness of the wrongness of her actions beyond reasonable doubt. The court's decision was based on the evidence and the applicable legal principles, and it is binding on the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v CJ [2013] NSWDC 40
Hearing dates:	25,26,27 February, 4,5, March 2013
Decision date:	14 March 2013
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Judge Williams
Decision:	Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness
Catchwords:	Judge alone trial - 21 sexual offences by a female offender against juveniles - mental illness - facts not disputed - issue of bipolar disorder - issue of wrongness - competing psychiatric opinions - relevance of DSM IV
Legislation Cited:	Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act Civil Liability Act Crimes Act
Cases Cited:	R v M'Naghten (1833) 8 ER 718 R v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266 R v Fernando [2011] NSWSC 1556 R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789 R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182 Sodeman v R [1936] 55 CLR 192 R v Weeks [1993] 66 A Crim R 466 Willgoss v R (1960) 105 CLR 295 R v Codere (1916) Cr App R 21 R v Hodges (1985) 19 A Crim R 129
Texts Cited:	Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM IV), Crime and Mental Health Law in NSW Howard & Westmore NSW Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions CJ
Representation:	DPP: Ms S Herbert , Def: Mr R Cavanaugh Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Baker & Borthwick, Tuncurry
File Number(s):	2010/17430 2010/00017810
Publication restriction:	A non-publication order applies to anything that might identify any complainant or other young person or the school from which they came.