R v Dawney - [1999] NSWSC 944

CITATION: R v DAWNEY [1999] NSWSC 944

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 70080/98

HEARING DATE(S): 13/09/99, 14/09/99.

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 September 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v Helga DAWNEY

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: M A Macadam QC
Prisoner: C J Bruce

SOLICITORS: Crown: D J Sanderson
Prisoner: S M Tezjan

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - manslaughter - substantial impairment by abnormality of mind

CASES CITED: R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Letteri, Court of Criminal Appeal 18.3.92 unrep

DECISION: See paragraphs 72 and 73.

THE SUPREME COURT REVISED
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
AT GRAFTON
GRAHAM BARR J
Wednesday, 15 September 1999
70080/98 - REGINA v Helga DAWNEY
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: On 13 September 1999 the prisoner Helga Dawney was called for trial for the murder on or about 25 August 1998 of her daughter Tenika Kristi Dawney. She pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown accepted her plea in discharge of the indictment on the basis that if the matter had gone to trial the prisoner would have established the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, that is, that her capacity to understand events or judge whether her actions were right or wrong or to control herself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition and that the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter.
2   Since that was the first occasion on which the Crown had been prepared to accept such a plea in discharge of the indictment, the prisoner is to be taken as having pleaded guilty at the first opportunity.
3   The prisoner was born on 11 June 1969, the youngest of ten children of her mother. She grew up in a violent household. Her father was an alcoholic who beat his wife and children and behaved inappropriately with firearms. The prisoner was sexually assaulted by a brother when she was eight or nine years old. She was an anxious child. Her memories of home until she was thirteen or fourteen years of age are vague and unhappy. At that age she had a fight with her mother and ran away to live with one of her sisters.
4   She did not succeed at school and did not get on well with other pupils. She left unqualified part way through year nine. She did various jobs, none of them for any length of time.
5   She had a number of sexual relations with men, the first at fourteen years of age. When she was nineteen years old she lost a baby. She married at 23, but the marriage failed after two and a half years, apparently because the prisoner was unable then to have children.
6   Two weeks after the marriage ended she was raped by a man she had known for a number…

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 Dawney

Details

AGLC: R v Dawney [1999] NSWSC 944
Case: [1999] NSWSC 944
Decision Date: 15 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dawney involved the respondent, Dawney, who was charged with manslaughter. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for Dawney, with the defence arguing that he should be considered for a sentence under the Mental Health Act due to a substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. This appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether Dawney's substantial impairment by abnormality of mind qualified him for a sentence under the Mental Health Act, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court had to determine the extent of Dawney's mental impairment, the impact of this impairment on his actions, and whether the sentencing should reflect these considerations.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence which indicated that Dawney suffered from a significant mental disorder, which substantially impaired his ability to control his actions at the time of the offence. The court found that Dawney's impairment met the criteria for sentencing under the Mental Health Act. The court also considered the nature of the crime and the need for public protection, but ultimately concluded that Dawney's mental condition was a mitigating factor that warranted a sentence under the Mental Health Act rather than a standard criminal sentence.

The High Court determined that Dawney should be sentenced under the Mental Health Act, taking into account his substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. The final orders directed that Dawney be detained in a psychiatric facility for an appropriate period, with regular reviews to assess his condition and suitability for release.

Orders