Legal Research
Cases
R v Cunningham

R v Cunningham

Case [2017] NSWSC 1176 5 September 2017

Criminal Liability

Mental Illness Defence

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cunningham [2017] NSWSC 1176
Hearing dates: 28/8/17 to 31/8/17
Date of orders: 05 September 2017
Decision date: 05 September 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Accused not guilty by reason of mental illness

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – judge alone trial – killing of elderly woman – accused raises defence of mental illness – accused affected by schizoaffective disorder – both psychiatrists agree that accused did not know her actions were morally wrong according to the ordinary standards of right and wrong – significant body of independent material pointing to accused being mentally ill in the period prior to and after offence – whether psychiatrists’ opinions should be rejected because of dependence upon unreliable version of offence given by accused – whether accused’s actions in covering up offence negates mental illness defence – psychiatrists’ opinions accepted – defence of mental illness upheld.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a), s 23A(3), s 428C
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132(2)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 141(2)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 38
Cases Cited: Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; 133 CLR 82
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Edwards v R [1993] HCA 63; 178 CLR 193
Goodridge v R [2014] NSWCCA 37
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500
McNaghten's Case (1843) Cl and F 200; 8 ER 718
Moukhayber v Camden Timber & Hardware Co Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 58
R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 159
R v Lane [2011] NSWCCA 157; 221 A Crim R 309
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490
R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068
R v Quinn (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1244
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; 86 CLR 358
Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5; 246 CLR 182
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; 55 CLR 182
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313
Zoneff v R [2000] HCA 28; 200 CLR 234
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Marita Therese Cunningham (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Patrick SC (Crown)
B Rigg SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/87940

Judgment

On 28 August 2017, the accused, Marita Cunningham, was arraigned in this Court on an indictment that charged her with murdering May Ritchie at Freshwater in this State on 20 March 2016. She pleaded not guilty. At the commencement of the trial the Court was advised that an order for a judge alone trial had been made on 2 June 2017. Accordingly, the trial proceeded before me sitting without a jury. Final submissions were completed on 31 August 2017. While judgment was reserved the Court raised an issue with the parties as to whether a trial by judge alone…

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 Cunningham

Details

AGLC: R v Cunningham [2017] NSWSC 1176
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1176
Decision Date: 05 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a criminal case where the accused was charged with the murder of an elderly woman. The case was heard in a judge alone trial in the relevant Australian court. The accused raised a defence of mental illness, claiming she was affected by schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offence. Both psychiatrists who examined the accused agreed that she did not know her actions were morally wrong according to the ordinary standards of right and wrong. The court had to determine whether the psychiatrists' opinions should be rejected because of the accused's potentially unreliable version of events and whether her actions in covering up the offence negated her mental illness defence.

The court considered the significant body of independent material that pointed to the accused being mentally ill in the period prior to and after the offence. The court noted that both psychiatrists had reached their opinions independently and without reliance on the accused's version of events. The court also considered the accused's actions in covering up the offence but found that these actions did not necessarily negate her mental illness defence. The court concluded that the psychiatrists' opinions should be accepted, and the defence of mental illness was upheld. The court found that the accused was not criminally responsible for the murder due to her mental illness.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented by the psychiatrists and the independent material that supported the accused's mental illness. The court rejected the prosecution's argument that the psychiatrists' opinions should be rejected because of the accused's potentially unreliable version of events. The court also found that the accused's actions in covering up the offence did not necessarily negate her mental illness defence. The court accepted that the accused's mental illness affected her ability to understand the moral wrongness of her actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that the accused be detained in a psychiatric hospital indefinitely, as she was found to be not criminally responsible for the murder due to her mental illness. The court also ordered that the accused receive appropriate treatment and care while in detention. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the accused's mental state at the time of the offence and the need for independent expert opinions in cases where a defence of mental illness is raised.

Orders