R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 2) - [2015] NSWSC 109

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Colin Maxwell FARROW (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 109
Hearing dates: 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, and February 2015
Date of orders: 27 February 2015
Decision date: 27 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Accused found guilty of the murder of Linda Jane Stevens.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - trial by judge alone - whether accused guilty or not guilty - defense of mental illness
Cases Cited: Broadhurst v R [1964] AC 441
Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63; (1993) 178 CLR 193
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26; (2014) 88 ALJR 754
R v Farrow [2014] NSWSC 1781
Tripodi v R [1961] ALR 780; (1961) 104 CLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Colin Maxwell Farrow (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
E. Wilkins SC (Crown)
I. Todd (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/119978
Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Colin Maxwell Farrow (the accused) is charged that on 11 April 2013 he murdered Linda Stevens. The accused applied for a trial by judge alone, which, despite the non-agreement of the prosecutor, was ordered: see R v Farrow [2014] NSWSC 1781.
It is necessary to deliver a verdict, being a finding that could have been made by a jury, and including in it the principles of law I have applied and the findings of fact that form the basis for the verdict.
Apart from the duty of the Crown to prove guilt of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, the accused also raises insanity as a defence and, as a consequence, the accused is required to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he is not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Procedural Issues

While the consequences of a special or other verdict should not and do not affect the outcome or result, it is necessary to explain those consequences. If the Court were to find the accused guilty (of either murder or manslaughter) it is almost certain that the Court would impose a sentence of imprisonment. If the Court were to find the accused not guilty, he would be released. If the Court were to reach a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness, the Court would need to determine whether neither his safety nor that of the community would be seriously put at risk by his release and, if such a determination were made in his favour, the Court would release him either unconditionally or on condition.
If, on the other hand, the Court were not satisfied that the accused should be released at this time, the Court would issue orders, the effect of which would be that the accused would be detained in custody until he is released by due process of law, that is, until the Mental Health Review Tribunal orders his release on the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NSWSC 109
Decision Date: 27 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Colin Maxwell Farrow (No 2) arose from a charge of murder against the accused, Colin Maxwell Farrow. The dispute involved the interpretation of the accused's mental state during the commission of the crime, and the appropriate legal framework to determine his culpability. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue before the court was whether Farrow was guilty of murder, considering his plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court had to decide whether the evidence supported the defence's claim that Farrow was not mentally responsible for his actions at the time of the offence.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, focusing on the expert psychiatric evidence provided. The defence argued that Farrow suffered from a severe mental disorder that impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. The prosecution contended that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that Farrow was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to control his behaviour at the time of the murder. The court had to weigh the psychiatric evidence and determine whether it was sufficient to establish the defence of mental illness on the balance of probabilities.

After thorough consideration, the court concluded that the defence of mental illness was not made out. The judge found that the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that Farrow lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to control his behaviour. The court found Farrow guilty of murder, rejecting the defence's argument regarding his mental state. The court's decision was based on the totality of the evidence and the applicable legal standards for establishing the defence of mental illness.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of Farrow for murder and the imposition of a sentence by the court. The specific details of the sentence were not included in the summary, but it was noted that the court had considered the circumstances of the offence and the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

Orders