Legal Research
Cases
R v Fang (No 3)

R v Fang (No 3)

Link copied

Case Copied 3 February 2017 53 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fang (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 28
Hearing dates: 21 November 2016
Date of orders: 21 November 2016
Decision date: 03 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Reasons for decision refusing to leave the defence of mental illness to the jury at the trial of the Accused

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial - Accused stabbed victim 20 times - whether defence of mental illness should be left to the jury - Accused using methylamphetamine (“Ice”) for about 12 months before killing - Accused had no family history of mental illness - Accused smoked significant quantity of “Ice” before killing - psychiatric evidence that Accused was subject to a defect of reason (a delusion) by reason of a disease of the mind (drug-induced psychosis) at the time of the killing - no other psychiatric condition present at the time - whether there was evidence of “disease of the mind” - held that no evidence of a “disease of the mind” in these circumstances - in any event, condition of Accused was substantially affected by substantial ingestion of “Ice” before the killing - defence of mental illness not left to the jury
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Attorney General of NSW v X [2013] NSWSC 1392
Bouchard-Lebrun v The Queen [2011] SCC 58; [2011] 3 SCR 575
Butler v State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 104
Director of Public Prosecutions v Ararvanitidis [2008] VSCA 189
McNamara v State of Western Australia [2013] WASCA 63
R v Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511
R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751
R v De Souza (1997) 41 NSWLR 656
R v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361
R v Doolan [2010] NSWSC 147
R v Fang (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1784
R v Gagalowicz [2005] NSWCCA 452
R v Gibson [2016] VSC 634
R v Ham [2009] NSWSC 296
R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
R v Kemp [1957] QB 399
R v Konidaris [2014] VSC 89
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; 243 A Crim R 31
R v Lukins (1903) 19 WN (NSW) 90
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14
R v Martin (No. 1) [2005] VSC 518; 159 A Crim 314
R v Parker [2009] VSCA 19
R v Radford [1985] 42 SASR 266
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; 55 CLR 182
R v Sebalj [2003] VSC 181
R v Sebalj [2006] VSCA 106
R v Stones (1955) 56 SR (NSW) 25
Smith v State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 176
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; 86 CLR 358
The Queen v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; 171 CLR 30
The Queen v Sullivan [1984] AC 156
Woodbridge…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Fang (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 28
Decision Date: 03 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fang, the accused was charged with the murder of a victim, whom he stabbed 20 times. The court had to determine whether the defence of mental illness should be presented to the jury. The accused had a history of using methylamphetamine ("Ice") for approximately 12 months prior to the killing. There was no family history of mental illness in the accused. The accused had consumed a significant quantity of "Ice" before committing the crime. Psychiatric evidence suggested that the accused was subject to a defect of reason due to a delusion, which was a result of drug-induced psychosis at the time of the killing. However, no other psychiatric condition was present at the time of the killing.

The court had to decide if there was evidence of a "disease of the mind" in these circumstances. The court held that there was no evidence of a "disease of the mind" in these circumstances. Even if there had been such evidence, the condition of the accused was substantially affected by the substantial ingestion of "Ice" before the killing. Therefore, the court concluded that the defence of mental illness should not be left to the jury.

The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal framework for the defence of mental illness. The court held that there was no evidence of a "disease of the mind" in these circumstances, and the accused's condition was substantially affected by the ingestion of "Ice" before the killing. The court did not leave the defence of mental illness to the jury.

The final orders of the court were that the defence of mental illness was not left to the jury, and the accused was found guilty of murder. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the legal framework for the defence of mental illness. The court held that there was no evidence of a "disease of the mind" in these circumstances, and the accused's condition was substantially affected by the ingestion of "Ice" before the killing. The accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced accordingly.

Orders