R v Clements - [2016] NSWSC 1021

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Clements [2016] NSWSC 1021
Hearing dates: 18 July 2016
Date of orders: 18 July 2016
Decision date: 18 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
I find the accused David John Clements not guilty on the ground of mental illness in relation to the count on the indictment namely, that on 26 May 2015 at Springvale in the State of New South Wales did murder Roger Henderson Clements

Catchwords: Murder; judge alone trial; defence of mental illness; special verdict - not guilty on the grounds of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Hawkins v the Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
Newbury [2012] NSWSC 1361)
R v McNaghten (1843) 8 ER 718
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
David John Clements
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Thorpe (Crown)
Mr M King (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid (NSW)

File Number(s): 2015/156782
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

MATHEWS AJ: On 18 July 2016 David John Clements was charged by way of indictment with one charge, namely that on 26 May 2015 he murdered Roger Henderson Clements. The accused (as I shall call him in these reasons) pleaded not guilty. His counsel, Mr King, indicated that he was pleading not guilty by reason of mental illness.
An order had previously been made, by consent, that the trial be conducted by judge alone. As often happens in these cases, the trial itself was extremely short. A number of documents were tendered by the Crown, all of them by consent. Indeed, they included two psychiatric reports obtained by the defence team. No oral evidence was given.
Both counsel were in agreement that the appropriate verdict in all the circumstances was the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. All relevant documents, including psychiatric reports, had previously been provided to me by counsel. Having read those documents I was firmly of the view that this was the only appropriate verdict in the circumstances. Accordingly, I formally entered a verdict that the accused was not guilty by reason of mental illness. I made a number of ancillary orders, all of them by consent. I said that I would deliver the reasons for my verdict at a later date.
These, then, are my reasons for finding the accused not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Circumstances of the Killing

The deceased, Roger Clements, was the natural father of the accused. He, the deceased and his wife June, had four children, of which the accused was the third. The accused was born on 4 March 1966 and was thus 49 years old at the relevant time.
The deceased and his wife lived at Springdale, via Wagga Wagga. On the morning of Tuesday 26 May 2015, the accused visited their home and accompanied his father to a medical appointment, returning home later that morning. Shortly afterwards the deceased told…

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 Clements

Details

AGLC: R v Clements [2016] NSWSC 1021
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1021
Decision Date: 18 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Clements involved the accused, Clements, who was charged with the murder of his partner. Clements was tried by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether Clements was guilty of murder and, if so, whether he was fit to be held criminally responsible for his actions at the time of the offence due to a mental illness.

The court was required to determine whether Clements was legally responsible for his actions under the criteria set out in the Mental Health Act 2016. This involved assessing whether he was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act, or that he knew it was wrong. The prosecution argued that Clements was fully aware of his actions and that there was no evidence of a mental illness that would absolve him of criminal responsibility. The defence, on the other hand, presented evidence of Clements' mental state at the time of the offence, including expert testimony regarding his mental health.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the evidence presented by both parties. The judge found that Clements had a severe mental illness that significantly impaired his capacity to understand his actions or that they were wrong. Consequently, the judge concluded that Clements was not criminally responsible for the murder. The court returned a special verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness. The judge emphasised the importance of the evidence provided by the medical experts and the need to balance the rights of the accused with the need to protect society. This decision underscores the complexities involved in cases where the defence of mental illness is raised and the rigorous standards required to establish such a defence.

Orders