R v Eyuboglu (No 2) - [2019] NSWSC 285

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
Hearing dates: 4 - 14 March 2019
Decision date: 19 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Verdict of guilty of murder

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – single count of murder – elements of offence admitted by accused – reliance upon defence of mental illness – ancillary reliance upon partial defence of substantial impairment – discussion of elements of defence of mental illness – consideration of whether proven on balance that, at time of fatal act, accused did not appreciate its wrongfulness – discussion of elements of partial defence of substantial impairment – consideration of whether proven on balance that impairment suffered by accused was so substantial as to warrant reduction in liability from murder to manslaughter – verdict of guilty of murder returned
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 39
Cases Cited: M’Naghten’s Case, Re [1843-60] All ER 22; (1843) 8 ER 718
Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205
R v Eyuboglu [2019] NSWSC 181
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Gokhan Eyuboglu (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Everson (Crown)
A Evers (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
McGirr Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/329217
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR VERDICT

Introduction

There can be no doubt about the fact that, on the evening of Tuesday, 29 August 2017, Mr Gokhan Eyuboglu (the accused) was with Mr Charles Grace (the deceased) in the modest apartment rented by the latter. Because of the temporary incarceration of another resident at that time, the two men were alone together.
Nor can there be any doubt that, at some stage between 6.00pm and 9.30pm, the accused repeatedly stabbed the deceased with a knife, causing his death.
Nor can it be doubted that, when the accused performed those acts, they were voluntary, in the sense that they were willed movements of his muscles: Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205 at 213.
Nor can it be doubted that, at the time he wounded the deceased repeatedly with that implement, the accused intended, at the least, to cause him really serious physical injury: s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
Quite apart from those undisputed aspects of the fatal acts, it is also beyond dispute that, as at that date, the accused suffered from the chronic and disabling mental illness of schizophrenia.
That is not only the unanimous opinion of two distinguished forensic psychiatrists. It is also demonstrated by a detailed diary that the accused maintained in the months leading up close to that time, and by the oral evidence of a number of people who were close to him, including his own mother. Together they show that he was tormented by auditory hallucinations in the form of derogatory voices, some of which were distressing…

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 Eyuboglu (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
Case: [2019] NSWSC 285
Decision Date: 19 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Eyuboglu (No 2) involved the appellant, Eyuboglu, who was charged with a single count of murder. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the decision being delivered by Justice Cox. The central issue before the court was whether Eyuboglu could be held criminally responsible for the murder despite the presence of a defence of mental illness and an ancillary reliance on the partial defence of substantial impairment.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defence of mental illness had been proven on the balance of probabilities, such that Eyuboglu did not appreciate the wrongfulness of the fatal act at the time of its commission. Additionally, the court considered whether the partial defence of substantial impairment was established, which would have reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter. The court undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence and submissions to ascertain whether Eyuboglu's mental condition at the time of the offence warranted a reduction in criminal liability.

In its decision, the court found that while Eyuboglu suffered from a mental disorder, it did not meet the threshold for the defence of mental illness as it did not render him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions. Furthermore, the court concluded that the impairment, while substantial, did not warrant a reduction in liability from murder to manslaughter. Consequently, the verdict of guilty of murder was returned against Eyuboglu.

Orders