R v EC - [2022] NSWSC 1088

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v EC [2022] NSWSC 1088
Hearing dates: 18, 19 and 21 July 2022
Date of orders: 17 August 2022
Decision date: 17 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) I return a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible in respect of Count 1 on the indictment, being the charge of murder.
(2) I return a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible in respect of Count 2 on the indictment, being the charge of intentionally destroy property by means of fire.
(3) Pursuant to s 33 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), I order that the accused be detained at the Austinmer Adolescence Unit in the Forensic Hospital or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until release by due process of law.
(4) Pursuant to s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) Act, I refer the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
(5) I order that the Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal, as soon as practicable, of the making of these orders and is to provide the Tribunal the following documentation:
(a) A copy of the Court’s reasons for verdict; and
(b) A copy of the statement of agreed facts, including the reports of Dr Nielssen and Dr Eagle.
(6) I order that the related charges which have been referred to this Court pursuant to a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) are dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW — murder — trial — judge alone — young person — defence of mental health impairment — special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment ForensicProvisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87
R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
R v Klamo [2008] VSCA 75
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064
Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358; [1952] HCA 56

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
EC (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Watts (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/251281
Publication restriction: There are publication restrictions in place concerning the identity of the accused, the deceased, any children involved in the proceedings and the location in which the deceased passed away pursuant to s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). This would include the identification of the victim in any way that may lead to the identification of the defendant.

Judgment

At some time between 15 and 16 August 2020,…

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 EC

Details

AGLC: R v EC [2022] NSWSC 1088
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1088
Decision Date: 17 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a young person charged with the murder of another individual. The matter was heard by a single judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defence argued that the accused was not criminally responsible due to a mental health impairment at the time of the offence. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proven the accused committed the act of murder and whether the accused was not criminally responsible due to a mental health impairment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and whether the accused's mental health impairment negated their criminal responsibility. The court considered evidence from medical experts, the accused's history, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The judge found that the prosecution had proven the act of murder but determined that the accused was not criminally responsible due to their mental health impairment.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning mental health impairments and criminal responsibility. The judge concluded that the accused's mental health condition substantially impaired their ability to understand the nature and quality of the act or to know that it was wrong. Consequently, the court returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible. The final orders included the accused being made subject to a mental health order, which will be reviewed periodically.

Orders