R v Cottam - [2019] NSWDC 738

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cottam [2019] NSWDC 738
Hearing dates: 11, 12 November 2019
Date of orders: 25 November 2019
Decision date: 25 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bright DCJ
Decision:
Count 1 - not guilty by reason of mental illness.
Count 2 - not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Catchwords: Criminal – trial by judge alone - wound with intent to murder – in the alternative - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – defence of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited: Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182
R v Tumanako 64 A Crim R 149
Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Robert David Cottam (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Tennant (Crown)
Mr De Brennan (Accused)
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2018/313719
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 11 November 2019 Robert Cottam (the “accused”) appeared before the Gosford District Court for trial.
A judge alone election had been filed on 11 October 2019. The Crown consented to the election. Accordingly, the trial proceeded as a judge alone trial on 11 November 2019 the Court having been satisfied that the accused, before making such an election, sought and received advice from a legal practitioner.
The accused was arraigned on the following counts:

Count 1 - On 14 October 2018, in Colongra in the State of New South Wales, did wound Peter James Richards with intent to murder the said Peter James Richards (s27, Crimes Act).
And further in the alternative to count 1, that
Count 2 - On 14 October 2018, in Colongra in the State of New South Wales, did wound Peter James Richards with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s33(1)(a), Crimes Act).

The accused pleaded not guilty to each count.
Ms Tennant, Crown Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr De Brennan of Counsel appeared on behalf of the accused.
It is alleged that the accused wounded Peter Richards (“the complainant”) with a knife causing a neck wound (5 cm deep), 2 chest wounds (superficial), stomach wound (superficial) and a laceration to his finger. At the time of the alleged offending the accused and the complainant both worked as security guards.
At the commencement of the trial, I was advised that the only issue at the trial is whether the accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness.
Both the Crown and Mr De Brennan on behalf of the accused, agree that is the appropriate verdict had regard to the available evidence.
It remains a matter for me to consider all the evidence and return my verdicts according to the evidence.

The Crown evidence at trial

There were no witnesses called in the trial. The Crown tendered the following documents.

Exhibit A – Agreed Facts

Exhibit B – Crown Bundle including:

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 Cottam

Details

AGLC: R v Cottam [2019] NSWDC 738
Case: [2019] NSWDC 738
Decision Date: 25 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cottam came before the court where the defendant was charged with wounding with intent to murder and, alternatively, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone in the absence of a jury, as the defendant had pleaded not guilty by reason of mental illness. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's mental condition at the time of the offence negated his criminal responsibility.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence and, if so, whether this illness rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act or knowing that it was wrong. The court was also required to determine whether the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crimes charged.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state. The court was satisfied that the defendant was suffering from a significant mental illness at the time of the incident, which impaired his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to form the necessary intent for either murder or grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the court found the defendant not guilty by reason of mental illness on both counts.

The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a psychiatric facility for treatment and care, as determined appropriate by medical professionals. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering mental health in criminal proceedings and the application of the defence of mental illness.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1 - not guilty by reason of mental illness.

Count 2 - not guilty by reason 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 Cottam [2019] NSWDC 738
Hearing dates:	11, 12 November 2019
Date of orders:	25 November 2019
Decision date:	25 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bright DCJ
Decision:	Count 1 - not guilty by reason of mental illness. Count 2 - not guilty by reason of mental illness.
Catchwords:	Criminal – trial by judge alone - wound with intent to murder – in the alternative - wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – defence of mental illness
Legislation Cited:	Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Mental Health Act 2007
Cases Cited:	Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77 R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718 R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182 R v Tumanako 64 A Crim R 149 Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Robert David Cottam (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Tennant (Crown) Mr De Brennan (Accused) Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2018/313719
Publication restriction:	Nil