R v Davidson (No. 2) - [2019] NSWSC 1011

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davidson (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1011
Hearing dates: 29 July 2019 – 31 July 2019; 2 August 2019; 7 August 2019
Date of orders: 14 August 2019
Decision date: 14 August 2019
Before: Davies J
Decision:
I return a verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter

Catchwords:
CRIME– murder - trial by judge alone – accused and deceased both inmates at the same prison – not in dispute that the deceased died from the combined effect of strangulation and blunt force trauma – whether it was the accused’s acts that killed the deceased – where the accused said he could not remember doing the acts causing death – circumstantial Crown case – where CCTV footage showed the deceased and accused alone in cell for more than 20 minutes with door shut – shortly after the accused left the cell the deceased was found unresponsive in his cell and subsequently died in hospital – injuries not capable of being self-inflicted or caused by misadventure – accused’s acts killed the deceased

CRIME — murder — defences — mental illness - where two expert psychiatrists agreed that the accused suffered from schizophrenia – disease of mind found – whether the accused could demonstrate that it was the underlying mental illness that was responsible for his acts causing death – where accused failed to demonstrate that it was his mental illness rather than self-induced intoxication that was operating on his actions - where the accused failed to show that he did not know that what he did was wrong – defence not made out

CRIME — criminal liability — intoxication — offences of specific intent - where the accused had consumed methamphetamine and Xanax on the morning of the offending – whether the accused’s self-induced intoxication deprived him of the capacity to form the requisite specific intention – elements of murder not made out - verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter
CRIME — murder — partial defences – substantial impairment – relationship to mental illness defence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 23A, 428A, 428B, 428C, 428E, 428G
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132, 132A
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 38
Cases Cited: M’Naghten’s Case, Re (1843) 8 ER 718; [1843-60] All ER 229
R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
R v Haydar (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 159
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
R v Meddings [1966] VR 306
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
Regina v Christov [2006] NSWSC 972
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Mervyn Keith Davidson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Lynch & C Everson (Crown)
A Norrie (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/45663
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Mervyn Keith…

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 Davidson (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Davidson (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1011
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1011
Decision Date: 14 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davidson (No. 2) involved the prosecution of the appellant for the murder of another inmate at the same prison. The deceased was found unresponsive in his cell and subsequently died in hospital, having suffered from the combined effect of strangulation and blunt force trauma. The central legal issue was whether the accused's actions caused the deceased's death, given that the accused claimed to have no memory of the events. The court needed to determine if the accused's self-induced intoxication or his underlying mental illness was responsible for his actions, and if he understood the wrongfulness of his actions. The case hinged on the interpretation of the defences of mental illness, intoxication, and the partial defence of substantial impairment.

The court considered whether the accused's schizophrenia, diagnosed by two expert psychiatrists, was the cause of his actions. The accused argued that his mental illness, not his intoxication, led him to commit the acts that caused the deceased's death. However, the court found that the accused did not demonstrate that his mental illness, rather than his intoxication, was the operating factor. Additionally, the accused failed to prove that he did not know his actions were wrong, thus the defence of mental illness was not successful. The court also concluded that the accused's intoxication did not negate his capacity to form the specific intent required for murder. Consequently, the court found the accused guilty of manslaughter but not guilty of murder.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the accused's intoxication and mental illness did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The accused was found to have the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions and to form the specific intent necessary for murder. The court considered the evidence and expert opinions but ultimately determined that the accused's intoxication and mental illness did not deprive him of the requisite mental capacity. The court ordered the accused be found guilty of manslaughter, reflecting the reduced culpability due to the mitigating factors of intoxication and mental illness.

Orders