Legal Research
Cases
R v Collins

R v Collins

Case [2004] ACTSC 48 18 June 2004

Diminished Responsibility

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN v THOMAS JAMES COLLINS
[2004] ACTSC 48 (18 June 2004)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – murder – deceased died as a result of single stab wound – no direct evidence as to how stabbing occurred – accused with no memory of events – circumstantial evidence – whether any rational hypothesis consistent with innocence – intoxication – circumstances in which self-induced intoxication negates a finding of conscious and voluntary conduct – intent to kill – whether degree of intoxication negates specific intent – manslaughter – diminished responsibility – unlawful and dangerous act

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68A, 68C
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 33
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 12(1), 15

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 8, 10, 14(a), (b), (c), 15(5), 30, 31, 32, 33, 34

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 80

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107
R v Tran [2003] ACTSC 53
R v Brown (1987) 78 ALR 368
The Queen v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10 at 21
The Queen v O’Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64 at 71-2
Chamberlain v The Queen (No. 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 558, 598
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313

No. SCC 108 of 2003

Judge: Weinberg J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 18 June 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. SCC 108 of 2003
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN
v
AND:THOMAS JAMES COLLINS

ORDER

Judge:  Weinberg J
Date:  18 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS:

on the charge that on 30 January 2003 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Thomas James Collins murdered Julia Margaret Collins the accused is not guilty.
on the alternative charge that on 30 January 2003 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Thomas James Collins unlawfully killed Julia Margaret Collins in circumstances amounting to manslaughter the accused is guilty.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. SCC 108 of 2003
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN
v
AND:THOMAS JAMES COLLINS

Judge:  Weinberg J
Date:  18 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WEINBERG J:

On the evening of 30 January 2003, at about 10.20 pm, Julia Margaret Collins was stabbed to death at her home at 29 Alfred Hill Drive, Melba. She died from a single wound to the abdomen. The wound was inflicted by a knife wielded with “severe force”, so much so that it penetrated the lumbar vertebra. The accused, Thomas James Collins, is the son of the deceased. He has been charged with her murder.

On 31 May 2004, the accused pleaded not guilty to that charge. He had earlier elected to be tried by judge alone, in accordance with the provisions of s 68A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). The procedures to be followed in a trial by judge alone are set out in s 68C…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 48
Case: [2004] ACTSC 48
Decision Date: 18 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Collins, the accused was tried in the Supreme Court of Queensland for the murder of a deceased individual who died from a single stab wound. The circumstances surrounding the stabbing were unclear, as there was no direct evidence of how it occurred. The accused claimed to have no memory of the events due to intoxication. The court was required to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether there was any rational hypothesis consistent with innocence. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the accused's intoxication on his ability to form the necessary intent to kill and whether his level of intoxication negated specific intent.

The court found that while there was no direct evidence of how the stabbing occurred, the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the accused's level of intoxication did not negate the necessary intent to kill, as the accused had been aware of his actions prior to the stabbing and had continued to engage in the act despite being intoxicated. The court also rejected the argument that the accused's intoxication negated his specific intent, finding that the accused had formed the intent to kill prior to becoming intoxicated. The court further held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his conscious and voluntary conduct, as he had been aware of his actions and had continued to engage in the act despite being intoxicated.

The court found the accused guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his conscious and voluntary conduct, as he had been aware of his actions and had continued to engage in the act despite being intoxicated. The court further held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his specific intent, as he had formed the intent to kill prior to becoming intoxicated. The court also rejected the argument that the accused's intoxication negated his conscious and voluntary conduct, finding that he had been aware of his actions and had continued to engage in the act despite being intoxicated. The court held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his specific intent, as he had formed the intent to kill prior to becoming intoxicated.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court held that the accused's level of intoxication did not negate the necessary intent to kill and that his intoxication did not negate his conscious and voluntary conduct. The court also held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his specific intent, as he had formed the intent to kill prior to becoming intoxicated. The court further held that the accused's intoxication did not negate his conscious and voluntary conduct, as he had been aware of his actions and had continued to engage in the act despite being intoxicated.

Orders