Legal Research
Cases
R v Coleman

R v Coleman

Case [2010] NSWSC 177 12 March 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v COLEMAN [2010] NSWSC 177

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 24 February 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 March 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1

DECISION: Arnold Coleman, upon the charge that on 2 October 2008 at Goonellabah in the State of New South Wales you did murder Jean Kathleen Coleman, pursuant to the provisions of s.22(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I find that you are not guilty by reason of mental illness.
I order that the accused be detained, pursuant to s.39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, in an appropriate correctional centre or such facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine until released by due process of law.
The Registrar is to notify the Minister of Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the terms of the orders made by this Court.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder – judge alone trial - special hearing - accused not guilty by reason mental illness

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Mental Health Act 2007

CASES CITED: Mizzi v Regina (1960) 105 CLR 659
Radford v The Queen (1985) 42 SASR at 274–275
Regina v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399
Regina v McNaghton (1843) 8 ER 718
Regina v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Regina v Quick (1973) QB 910

PARTIES: REGINA v
Arnold COLEMAN

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/1628

COUNSEL: C: J McLennan
O: C Bruce SC

SOLICITORS: C: S Kavanagh
O: S O'Connor

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HALL J

FRIDAY 12 MARCH 2010

No 2009/1628

REGINA v ARNOLD COLEMAN

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused Arnold Coleman, was arraigned on indictment on 13 March 2009. He was charged with the murder of Jean Kathleen Coleman on 2 October 2008 at Goonellabah, New South Wales.

2 A fitness to be tried hearing was held on 27 May 2009 in which Adams J made a finding under s.14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (“the Act”) that the accused was unfit to be tried. Adams J referred the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s.14(a) of the Act.

3 The Mental Health Review Tribunal determined pursuant to s.16(1) and s.45(4) and (5) of the Act that on the balance of probabilities the accused would not during the next 12 months become fit to be tried.

4 Bail was refused and the accused was remanded as a forensic patient at Long Bay Prison Hospital pursuant to the Mental Health Review Tribunal’s determination under s.46(1) of the Act. The Tribunal unanimously confirmed these findings on 1 February 2010.

5 On 21 October 2009, the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to s.19 of the Act, elected to proceed with the charge of murder against the accused.

6 On 24 February 2010, a special hearing pursuant to s.19 of the Act was held before this Court in Lismore, New South Wales. Mr C Bruce SC appeared…

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 Coleman

Details

AGLC: R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
Case: [2010] NSWSC 177
Decision Date: 12 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Coleman, the defendant was charged with the murder of a victim. The trial was held before a judge alone, in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The defendant pleaded not guilty and further pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness. A special hearing was conducted to determine the issue of the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, such that he could not be held criminally responsible for his actions. This required the court to consider the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the defence of mental illness, as well as expert evidence regarding the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offence.

The court found that the defendant was indeed suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which rendered him unable to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. The court accepted the evidence of expert witnesses, who diagnosed the defendant with a severe mental illness that impaired his ability to form the requisite intent to commit murder. The court further found that the defendant’s mental illness was not due to the voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs. Accordingly, the court found the defendant not guilty by reason of mental illness.

The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a mental health facility, pending further orders of the court. The court also directed that the defendant receive appropriate treatment for his mental illness, and that his progress be regularly reviewed.

Orders