Legal Research
Cases
R v Derbin

R v Derbin

Case [2000] NSWCCA 361 12 September 2000

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Mental Illness Defence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v DERBIN [2000] NSWCCA 361

FILE NUMBER(S):
60725/98

HEARING DATE(S): 29 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/09/2000

PARTIES:
REGINA v Peter DERBIN

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Levine J Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70090/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ireland J

COUNSEL:
Crown: L M B Lamprati
Appellant: J C Nicholson SC

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S E O'Connor
Appellant: D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS:
Suffocating with intent to murder - maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm - mental illness defence - underlying schizophrenic condition affected by alcohol and drugs - extent to which appellant’s mental illness affected his capacity to reason - appellant did not know that what he did was wrong - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s7(4) - ND.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
See par 77

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60725/98
MASON P
LEVINE J
GREG JAMES J
Tuesday 12 September 2000

REGINA v Peter DERBIN
JUDGMENT

MASON P: The appellant was indicted in the Supreme Court and tried before Ireland J and a jury. He was found guilty on charges of attempting to suffocate Maisie Derbin with intent to murder her and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Maisie Derbin with intent to do so. Maisie Derbin is the appellant’s mother.
There was little dispute as to the primary facts giving rise to the two related charges. The evidence of most witnesses was read from their statements. The only contested issue was the defence of mental illness.
The appellant lived with his mother and her father. At the time of the offences, 16 August 1997, the appellant was aged about 22 and his mother was 55.
The account of the facts given by Ireland J in his remarks on sentence was as follows:
At about 5.30pm on Saturday 16 August 1997 the victim, Maisie Derbin, who was then aged 55 years, returned from her regular employment in a retail department store at Warringah Mall, Brookvale, to her father’s home at 65 Gondola Road, Narrabeen, where she resided with her father and son the prisoner.
At about 6.30pm the prisoner arrived home from his employment as a storeman at a supermarket located at Warriewood Square, Mona Vale. The prisoner’s grandfather arrived home at about 7.30pm. The prisoner left the house and purchased fish and chips for the family’s evening meal.
At about 8.30pm the prisoner retired to his bedroom and began listening to taped music by the group known as “Metallica”. About 9.30pm the volume of the music was increased by the prisoner to the extent that his mother requested him to reduce it, as his grandfather was about to retire to bed.
Mrs Derbin tried to turn down the volume, but was restrained by the prisoner, who pushed her away. She fell onto the prisoner’s bed and was slapped a number of times by the prisoner with an open hand. Mrs Derbin also slapped the prisoner a couple of times before returning to her…

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 Derbin

Details

AGLC: R v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 361
Decision Date: 12 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Derbin involved the appellant, who was charged with the crime of suffocating a victim with the intent to murder and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The appellant raised a defence of mental illness, claiming that his underlying schizophrenic condition, exacerbated by alcohol and drug use, impaired his capacity to reason and understand that what he did was wrong. The case was heard in a higher court of appeal in Australia.

The court was required to determine the extent to which the appellant's mental illness affected his capacity to reason and understand the nature and quality of his acts. The court also had to consider whether the appellant knew that what he did was wrong, and whether this was a result of his mental illness. The court needed to apply the relevant provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 to determine the appropriate outcome.

The court held that the appellant's mental illness did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court found that the appellant's mental illness did not affect his capacity to reason and understand the nature and quality of his acts. The court also held that the appellant knew that what he did was wrong, and that this was not a result of his mental illness. The court found that the appellant's defence of mental illness was not successful, and dismissed the appeal.

The court ordered that the appellant's conviction and sentence be upheld. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict and that there were no errors in the trial proceedings. The court also held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and did not require any alteration.

Orders