R v Dargin - [2008] NSWSC 751

CITATION: R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 11 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 July 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: Not guilty by reason of mental illness

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Trial by judge alone - murder - defence of mental illness

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act (ss37, 39)

CASES CITED: R v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182

PARTIES: Regina (DPP)
Gregory James Dargin (accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/1645

COUNSEL: S Huggett (Crown)
C Loukas (accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIDDEN J

Friday 25 July 2008

2008/1645 Regina v Gregory James Dargin
REASONS FOR VERDICT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused, Gregory James Dargin, has been tried before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of the man he knew as his father, Gregory John Gilchrist. In the afternoon of 7 September 2006, he stabbed Mr Gilchrist in the neck with a steak knife, causing his death. There is no dispute that he acted deliberately, with the intention to kill, and that the elements of murder are made out. In any event, the material before me establishes those elements beyond reasonable doubt. The only issue is whether he has the defence of mental illness, although there is no dispute about that matter either.

2 The accused was born on 5 February 1984 and is now twenty-four years old. Since infancy, he was cared for by his maternal aunt, Mrs Patricia Gilchrist, who was married to the victim. Mr and Mrs Gilchrist were effectively his parents, and he referred to them as “mum” and “dad”. They also raised several of his siblings as their own children.

3 In August 1998, when the accused was fifteen years old, he suffered a head injury in a car accident. He was unconscious for some minutes. He had several seizures, but was never prescribed any medication. He began to abuse drugs in his early teens, starting with cannabis and moving on to amphetamines, heroin and methamphetamine or “ice”. In his later teens he also started to take pills, including valium and serapax.

4 From 2003, the year he turned nineteen, his drug use brought him into conflict with the law. Over the ensuing years, he was convicted of some relatively minor offences and sentenced to short terms of imprisonment. Mrs Gilchrist observed a deterioration in his physical appearance and his mood. There were incidents of irrational behaviour. He would frequently damage property in the house, and on occasions police had to be called.

5 In 2006, he was still using a variety of drugs regularly. He was in custody between April and July of that year, for reasons which are of no present relevance. While in custody, he reported hearing voices telling him that prison officers were going to kill him and that, if he did…

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 Dargin

Details

AGLC: R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751
Case: [2008] NSWSC 751
Decision Date: 25 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dargin was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Dargin, was charged with the murder of his wife. The defence argued that Dargin was not criminally responsible for the murder due to a mental illness. The central issue before the court was whether Dargin was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to form the requisite intent to commit murder at the time of the offence. The prosecution maintained that Dargin was fully aware of his actions and their consequences, and that he was therefore criminally responsible for the murder.

The court considered the evidence presented on Dargin's mental state at the time of the offence. The defence provided expert psychiatric evidence, which suggested that Dargin was suffering from a severe mental disorder that impaired his ability to form the requisite intent for murder. The prosecution, however, argued that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Dargin was unable to form the necessary intent due to his mental illness. The court ultimately determined that the evidence supported the conclusion that Dargin was not suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to form the requisite intent for murder. The court found that Dargin was criminally responsible for the murder of his wife.

The court held that the defence of mental illness was not available to Dargin, as he was able to form the requisite intent for murder at the time of the offence. The court found that Dargin's mental state did not impair his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions, or that they were wrong. The court rejected the defence's argument that Dargin was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to form the requisite intent for murder. The court found that Dargin was guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Orders