R v Craig James GRANT - [2009] NSWSC 833

CITATION: R v Craig James GRANT [2009] NSWSC 833

HEARING DATE(S): 17 August 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Harrison J

DECISION: 1. I find that the accused Craig James Grant is not guilty of the murder of Jasmine Bell by reason of mental illness.
2. I find that the accused Craig James Grant is not guilty of attempting to wound Andrew O'Grady with intent to murder him by reason of mental illness.
3. In accordance with s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I order that Craig James Grant, formerly referred to in these reasons for judgment as the accused, be detained in an appropriate correctional centre or such facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine until released by due process of law.
4. Pursuant to s 39(3) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I direct that the Registrar of this Court notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the terms of this order.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – attempt to wound with intent to murder - accused found unfit to plead - special hearing pursuant to s 19 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 – defence of mental illness – where accused suffered from long history of schizophrenia and delusional psychosis – whether accused knew the nature and quality of his acts or that what he was doing was wrong - defect of reason from disease of mind – unanimous medical opinion of psychiatrists that elements of defence of mental illness made out – accused not guilty by reason of mental illness

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Lucas v The Queen [1970] HCA 14; (1970) 120 CLR 171
Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77; (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Grant [2008] NSWSC 784
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399
R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Pangallo (1989) 51 SASR 254
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1936) 55 CLR 182
R v Stiles (1990) 50 A Crim R 13
R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505; (2001) 54 NSWLR
Sodeman v The King [1936] HCA 75; (1936) 55 CLR 192
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
Thomas v The Queen [1960] HCA 2; (1960) 102 CLR 584

PARTIES: The Crown
Craig James Grant (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/5782

COUNSEL: M M Hobart SC (Crown)
J S Manuel (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
S O'Connor, Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HARRISON J

20 August 2009

2007/5782 R v Craig James GRANT
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 31 July 2008 the accused was found by Johnson J to be unfit to be tried for the offences…

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 Craig James GRANT

Details

AGLC: R v Craig James Grant [2009] NSWSC 833
Case: [2009] NSWSC 833
Decision Date: 20 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Craig James GRANT, the defendant stood accused of an attempted wounding with intent to murder. The case was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant, who had a documented history of schizophrenia and delusional psychosis, could be held criminally responsible for his actions, given his mental state at the time of the offence.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant possessed the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature and quality of his acts or to appreciate that what he was doing was wrong. This involved assessing whether the defendant's mental illness constituted a 'defect of reason from disease of the mind' as per the statutory criteria. The defence argued that the defendant's severe mental condition precluded him from meeting the legal standards of criminal responsibility.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the unanimous medical evidence of three psychiatrists who assessed the defendant. Their findings supported the defence's contention that the defendant's mental illness satisfied the criteria for the defence of mental illness under the applicable legislation. The unanimous expert opinion was that the defendant did not understand the nature and quality of his acts or realise that they were wrong due to his severe mental disorder. Consequently, the court ruled that the defendant was not guilty by reason of mental illness.

The court made orders consistent with the findings, declaring the defendant unfit to plead and acquitting him on the basis of mental illness. The case underscores the importance of expert medical evidence in determining criminal responsibility in cases involving severe mental health issues.

Orders