R v Dawson - [2024] NSWSC 260

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 260
Hearing dates: 4 March 2024
Decision date: 04 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
The accused is fit to be tried.

Catchwords:
CRIME – judge-alone trial – accused charged with murder – proposal to plead guilty after trial commenced – plea of guilty may not have been rationally based and in the interests of the accused – question as to fitness to be tried under Pt 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – inquiry held – accused fit to be tried.

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 36(1), 42(1)(b), 44, 46 and Pt 4

Cases Cited:
R v Sione; R v Dawson [2023] NSWSC 1594
White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Kayla Dawson (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
P Johnson (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Aaron Legal (Accused)

File Number(s): 225943/2021

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Kayla Dawson is being tried together with Richard Sione for the alleged murder of Jason Galleghan at Doonside on 4 August 2021.
Ms Dawson’s defence is understood to be that the Crown is unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt she is guilty on any of the bases of liability alleged, namely joint criminal enterprise, extended joint criminal enterprise, and constructive murder. She also contends that if the essential elements of murder are proved, she should be found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter because at the relevant time she had a substantial impairment of her capacity to understand events, or to judge whether her actions were right or wrong, or to control herself, because of a cognitive impairment which was so substantial to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter.
The trial commenced on Monday, 19 February 2024 and is being conducted without a jury following each accused making an election for trial by judge alone; R v Sione; R v Dawson [2023] NSWSC 1594.
On the ninth day of the trial, Thursday, 29 February 2024, I was informed by counsel for Ms Dawson that she had given instructions to enter a plea of guilty. I asked counsel if he could indicate the basis upon which his client was prepared to admit her guilt of murder and he responded:^[1]

I have had that conversation and the only basis upon which my client is admitting liability is really that she doesn't want to be here anymore and doesn't want to continue participating in the trial and wants it to be over. She was not able to articulate any basis in a criminal liability sense as to why she should be pleading guilty to murder.
1. T556.10

In the course of determining the judge-alone trial applications of the accused two reports of a senior clinical neuropsychologist, Ms Lisa Zipparo, were tendered. In the report dated 26 July 2023 there appeared…

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 Dawson

Details

AGLC: R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 260
Case: [2024] NSWSC 260
Decision Date: 04 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dawson involved a defendant charged with murder who proposed to plead guilty after the commencement of the trial. The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the plea of guilty, which was proposed after the trial had begun, could be considered both rationally based and in the interests of the accused. This consideration was necessary to determine the admissibility of the plea in a judge-alone trial under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). Furthermore, the court had to consider whether there were grounds to question the fitness of the accused to be tried, invoking the provisions of Part 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW).

The court delved into the procedural history and the circumstances leading up to the proposal of the guilty plea. It examined the timing of the plea and the context in which it was made, assessing whether the accused had a rational basis for entering a plea of guilty and whether it was in their best interests. The court also conducted an inquiry into the fitness of the accused to be tried, as required by the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). This involved reviewing medical evidence and other relevant material to determine whether the accused had a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment that affected their fitness to be tried.

Upon review, the court concluded that the plea of guilty was indeed rationally based and in the interests of the accused. It found that the accused had a sound understanding of the implications of pleading guilty and the consequences of a conviction. Additionally, the inquiry into the accused's fitness determined that there was no mental health impairment or cognitive impairment that would render the accused unfit to be tried. Consequently, the court accepted the guilty plea and proceeded with the trial.

The court ultimately delivered its final orders, convicting the accused on the charge of murder and determining the appropriate sentence. The precise details of the sentence were not specified in the text provided, but it was noted that the court had considered the plea and the circumstances of the case in reaching its decision.

Orders