|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | R v Crickitt |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2016] NSWSC 1738 |
Hearing Date(s): | 26, 27, 28, 31 October 2016;1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 November 2016 |
Date of Orders: | 8 December 2016 |
Decision Date: | 8 December 2016 |
Jurisdiction: | Common Law - Criminal |
Before: | Hoeben CJ at CL |
Decision: | Accused guilty of the murder of Christine Crickitt. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – circumstantial case – cause of death unable to be clinically established – whether circumstantial evidence established death as a result of insulin injection – verdict of guilty. |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) - s 132(2) |
Cases Cited: | Azzopardi v The Queen [2001] HCA 25; 205 CLR 50 |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | Regina |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 2014/356147 |
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: Brian Kenneth Crickitt (the accused) was arraigned before me on 14 October 2016 and pleaded not guilty to the following count in the indictment:
That on or about 1 January 2010 at Woodbine in the State of New South Wales he did murder Christine Crickitt.
The trial was conducted without a jury. The accused applied for an order that he be tried by judge alone. The Crown consented to the application (s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)). The trial commenced on 26 October 2016 and concluded on 10 November 2016.
Crown case
The Crown case was that the accused deliberately injected insulin into the left buttock of the deceased [his wife] on the night of 31 December 2009 or in the early morning of 1 January 2010. The Crown submitted that if the Court accepted that fundamental proposition, there could be no doubt that this was done with the intention to murder the deceased because she was not a diabetic and there was no legitimate medical reason for the accused to inject her…
Continue reading R v Crickitt
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Crickitt [2016] NSWSC 1738
- Case
- [2016] NSWSC 1738
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Crickitt involved a trial by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The accused, Brian Crickitt, was charged with the murder of his wife, Christine Crickitt, on or about 1 January 2010. The primary legal issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the Crown was sufficient to establish that the accused had caused the death of his wife through an insulin injection. The court had to consider the evidence related to the acquisition of insulin, the injection site, and the cause of death, as well as other relevant circumstances surrounding the death.
The court evaluated the evidence, including admissions by the accused, the circumstances of insulin acquisition, the analysis of the purported injection site, and the likelihood of postural asphyxiation. The court concluded that the Crown had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had improperly obtained insulin and administered it to the deceased, leading to her death. The court found that the deceased's death was caused by an overdose of insulin, administered by the accused with the intention to cause her death. The court found the accused guilty of murder.
The court's decision hinged on the comprehensive evaluation of the circumstantial evidence, the credibility of the medical evidence, and the logical connections between the various pieces of evidence presented. The court found the accused guilty of the murder of Christine Crickitt.
The court evaluated the evidence, including admissions by the accused, the circumstances of insulin acquisition, the analysis of the purported injection site, and the likelihood of postural asphyxiation. The court concluded that the Crown had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had improperly obtained insulin and administered it to the deceased, leading to her death. The court found that the deceased's death was caused by an overdose of insulin, administered by the accused with the intention to cause her death. The court found the accused guilty of murder.
The court's decision hinged on the comprehensive evaluation of the circumstantial evidence, the credibility of the medical evidence, and the logical connections between the various pieces of evidence presented. The court found the accused guilty of the murder of Christine Crickitt.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Finally, I must exercise caution about hearsay evidence for the simple reason that by its nature the person who made that statement relied upon for its truth cannot be cross-examined and hearsay evidence is generally unable to be tested deeply - s 165(1)(a) Evidence Act.REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCEAdmissions by Accused Exhibit 3 comprised a Statement of Admissions pursuant to s 184 of the Evidence Act. I am satisfied that the accused made these admissions after receiving advice from his counsel and solicitor and that he understood the consequences of making the admissions. The admissions were:“General1. Brian Crickitt ('the accused') and Christine Crickitt ('the deceased') married in March 1991.2. The deceased died on or about 1 January 2010.3. The accused and the deceased resided together at 2 Clontarf Close, Woodbine at the time of the death of the deceased.4. The accused was at all relevant times a doctor of medicine in general practice.Campbelltown Medical and Dental Centre (CMDC)5. The accused was working at the CMDC from January 2006 until after the death of the deceased.6. The hours and days that the accused worked at the CMDC were rostered. The accused was rostered to work at the CMDC on 31 December 2009 between 10am and 8pm.7. The accused had his own consultation room at the CMDC. The accused had a key to the room. Occasionally, doctors would use other doctors' rooms.8. The usual practice at CMDC was that patients entered a queue on arrival for consultations with a doctor.9. Patient records at the CMDC were maintained and managed on a computer system known as MedTech32.10. MedTech32 had both clinical and accounting or financial functions.11. Each doctor at the CMDC had a computer in his or her consultation room.12. Each doctor had a confidential username/login and password for the computer. CMDC policy was not to share or allow others to use a username/log-in and password.13. Patient files were accessed by employees and doctors on the computer by use of the username/log-in and password.14. Doctors at CMDC generated prescriptions for patients on the computer using Medtech32.15. Medtech32 recorded changes and additions made to the database if used to access a patient file according to a particular log-in.The NovoRapid prescription on 31 December 200916. The accused treated a patient, Kristina Mitchell, at the CMDC at approximately 3:12 PM on 31 December 2009.17. The accused treated a patient, Brett Jackson, at the CMDC at approximately 4:58 PM on 31 December 2009.18. At 5:01 PM on 31 December 2009 the accused issued a prescription to Kristina Mitchell for NovoRapid FlexPen 3ml (5 x 5) ('the NovoRapid prescription') and signed that prescription in the 'Doctor' field.19. The NovoRapid prescription was subsequently filled by Evon Binyamin at the CMDC pharmacy.20. It is not disputed that the signature in the 'Patient/agent' field of the prescription is that of the accused. The similarities between the specimen signatures examined by Melanie Holt and the signature appearing in the 'Patient/agent' field of the NovoRapid prescription indicate that it is highly probable that the accused is the signatory.Medications at the home21. The accused was acting as the treating medical practitioner of the deceased preceding her death.22. A number of general practitioners, including the accused, and specialist doctors, had treated the deceased for a variety of complaints during her marriage to the accused.23. The accused prescribed the deceased a number of medications during their marriage. A number of these medications were initially prescribed by specialists or other general practitioners and subsequently by the accused.24. As at 1 January 2010, the accused prescribed the following medications to the deceased:• Oroxine, 100mg per day.• Deralin, 40mg twice per day.• Lexapro, 10mg per day.• Zyprexa, 10mg per day.• Mobic, 15mg per day.25. The accused collected medications prescribed to the deceased from the CMDC pharmacy.26. The deceased was not a diabetic.27. A packet of Ativan 1 mg 50 tablets was found by police in a drawer of the vanity in the ensuite bathroom attached to the deceased's and accused's bedroom. Ativan is the tablet form of the drug Lorazepam.28. The Ativan tablets had a label on the box indicating that they had been prescribed for Elizabeth Razmovski by Dr Rifaat Girgis, a doctor at the CMDC.29. Ms Razmovski was a patient at the Campbelltown Medical and Dental Centre, and saw numerous doctors at that practice, including Dr Girgis and the accused.30. On 18 March 2008, 30 April 2008 and 13 April 2009, Dr Girgis prescribed Ms Razmovski Ativan tablets 1mg (50 tablets).31. On 20 April 2009, Ms Razmovski had a consultation with the accused at CMDC.Financial32. In around 1995 the accused and deceased bought a property at 2 Clontarf Close, Woodbine ('the Woodbine property') for approximately $246,500.33. In around 2000, the accused and the deceased bought a property at 70 Woodhouse Drive, Ambervale ('the Ambervale property') for $175,000. They ran a medical practice from the Ambervale property until 2006 when the accused commenced employment at the CMDC. The accused and deceased sold the Ambervale property sometime 2009 for approximately $320,000.34. As at 1 January 2010 the accused and the deceased owned the following property:• The Woodbine property, subject to a mortgage with Bankwest (account 100-155763-0), with $283,293.45 owing as at 28 January 2010.• 47 Lawn Avenue, Bradbury, owned by Crickitt Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee of 'the Divine Trust', subject to a mortgage with ING (account 23114659) with $214,633.11 owing as at 31 December 2009. As at 20 June 2010, the Financial accounts of the Divine Trust recorded the value of the property as $265,383.95.35. In the financial year ending 31 June 2010, the accused had declared income of $98,730 with the deceased declared income being $45,886. The accused was also the Executive Director of Brian Crickitt Pty Ltd which was paid revenue, after expenses, of $247,137.07 from Primary Health, as a result of the accused work at the CMDC.36. In addition to owning the property at Bradbury, Crickitt Investments Pty Ltd as Trustee of 'the Divine Trust' also owned various shares and managed funds. The Divine Trust was a discretionary trust, with the accused and deceased as beneficiaries. In 2009, the trust had total current assets recorded on a costs basis of $71,927.92, which included $67,462,57 in shares and $4,465.35 in cash. As at 31 December 2009, the market value of these shares was $99,473.73. By 2010, the amount was $72,387.86 in total current assets, comprising $68,334.46 in shares and $4,053.40 in cash.37. The accused self-managed both his and the deceased's superannuation fund. The money in the fund was invested in various shares and managed investments as recommended by their financial advisor at the time. The net assets of the fund as at 30 June 2009 were $179,785.30 and $202,280.05 as at 30 June 2010.Insurance38. A life insurance policy in respect of the deceased (policy number 8207411) was taken out with Aviva in or about March 2005.39. At the time of the deceased's death, the deceased had a life insurance policy with Aviva. That policy insured the deceased in the event of her death for a lump sum of $568,230 as at 22 March 2009.40. The accused was the beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the event of the death of the deceased.41. A life insurance police in respect of the accused (policy number 1330123) was taken out with Aviva in around 2005. That policy insured the accused in the event of his death in the sum of $876,729 as at 8 September 2008.The deceased was the beneficiary of the life insurance policy in the event of the death of the accused.42. The value of each policy increased automatically each year by virtue of the policy.43. The accused treated a patient, Kristina Mitchell, at the Campbelltown Medical Centre at approximately 3pm on 31 December 2009.Telephone records44. At all relevant times the number of the home telephone service of the accused and the deceased was 4620 9759.45. At all relevant times the number of the mobile telephone service of the accused was 0421 040 824.46. At all relevant times the number of the mobile telephone service of the deceased was 0414 604 068.47. At all relevant times the number of the mobile telephone service of Linda Livermore was 0451 147 128.Internet48. As at December 2009, the accused had a personal email addressdrbrian@mac.com.Fingerprints49. Three original scripts (the Novorapid script, Lantus Solostar script, andMogodon, Colgout and Asmol script) prescribed for the patient Kristina Mitchell on 31 December 2009 were examined for fingerprints.50. Six fingerprints suitable for comparison were located on the three scripts in total. None of the six fingerprints located on the scripts belonged to Kristina Mitchell or the accused.51 Three fingerprints suitable for comparison were identified as belonging to the officer in charge of the investigation and a government officer responsible for processing scripts.52. Three fingerprints suitable for comparison were not identified. The three fingerprints not identified did not belong to any person known to have handled the scripts including the pharmacist at CMDC and government officers responsible for processing scripts.Investigations53. Between 5 September 2014 and 4 December 2014, surveillance devices recorded conversations in the accused's home at 2 Clontarf Place, Woodbine pursuant to a lawfully obtained warrant.”Medical evidenceInsulin as a cause of death
Decision
Reasons for decision
The evidence in relation to the cremation of the deceased is inconclusive and I make no findings in relation to it.Conclusion In my analysis of the evidence I have assessed each circumstance relied on by the Crown and set out my conclusions. Of necessity, in relation to some of these circumstances, I was obliged to consider them in isolation. I now propose to re-visit those issues having regard to the whole of the Crown’s circumstantial case. As I have already made clear, the issue of whether the accused improperly obtained a supply of insulin on 31 December 2009 by means of the Kristina Mitchell NovoRapid prescription was fundamental to the Crown case. For the reasons given, I am satisfied that the Crown has established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did obtain a supply of insulin in that way. That finding has important implications for other circumstantial evidence adduced in the trial. When considering whether insulin was a cause of the deceased’s death, I concluded that there was no clinical evidence to that effect. That remains the effect of the medical evidence. I am now, however, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased’s death was caused by an overdose of insulin. This is largely because of my finding in respect of the acquisition of a supply of insulin by the accused on 31 December 2009. When considering the “purported injection site” I concluded that the photographs of the deceased’s left buttock raised the possibility of there being an injection site at that location. I am now satisfied on the whole of the evidence that photographs (Exhibits S and AL) do show an injection site and that this was where the insulin was administered by the accused. In reaching that conclusion I acknowledge that there remains a gap in the Crown case as to exactly how the insulin was administered. For the reasons already given, I have concluded that it was more likely that a subterfuge was used by the accused in order to gain the deceased’s acquiescence to him administering an injection. When considering the likelihood of postural asphyxiation as a cause of death, I concluded that it was very unlikely but possible. On the whole of the evidence I am now satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that positional asphyxiation was not a cause of the deceased’s death. Accordingly, I make the following findings beyond reasonable doubt.(1)That the accused improperly obtained a supply of insulin on 31 December 2009 otherwise than in the normal course of his work as a medical practitioner by means of the Kristina Mitchell NovoRapid prescription.(2)That on 31 December 2009 the accused administered a quantity of insulin by way of injection to the deceased.(3)That the administration of the insulin to the deceased was a deliberate act on the part of the accused and that this act caused the death of the deceased.(4)That the injection of insulin to the deceased by the accused was done with an intention to cause her death. It follows that I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved that the accused committed the offence on the indictment and I find the accused guilty of the murder of Christine Crickitt.**********
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.