R v Farrow - [2014] NSWSC 1781

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Colin Maxwell Farrow [2014] NSWSC 1781
Hearing dates: 5 December 2014
Decision date: 15 December 2014
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
1.The trial of Colin Maxwell Farrow on the charge of murdering Linda Jane Stevens be heard and determined by judge alone, pursuant to the terms of s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986;
2.The Crown and counsel for the accused confer as to the most convenient course for adducing evidence of facts not to be controverted in the course of the proceedings;
3.The trial of Colin Maxwell Farrow, for the aforesaid charge, be heard commencing 10am 3 February 2015;
4.The parties have liberty to apply on 3 days' notice.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for judge alone opposed by Crown - issue of mental illness only - conflict in expert evidence - indisposition of one of experts - test of "interests of justice" satisfied
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; (2012) 217 A Crim R 1
R v Dean [2013] NSWSC 661
R v Gittany [2013] NSWSC 1503
R v King [2013] NSWSC 448; (2013) 228 A Crim R 406
R v McKnight [2014] NSWSC 398
R v Stanley [2013] NSWCCA 124
R v Villalon [2013] NSWSC 1516
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Colin Maxwell Farrow (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
E.Wilkins SC (Crown)
I.Todd (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office for Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/119978
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By Motion, notice of which was filed and served on 30 October 2014, the accused, Colin Maxwell Farrow (the applicant) applies for an order that the trial allocated to me for hearing be heard by a judge alone and not by jury. The Crown opposes that course.

The applicant is charged with murder, said to have been committed at Wollongong on 11 April 2013.

The applicant relies upon the affidavit of Joanne Harris, solicitor. The trial is due to commence on 2 February 2015.

The affidavit states that the sole issue for determination at trial is limited to whether the applicant has available to him a defence of mental illness. There are psychiatric reports filed and upon which each of the Crown and the applicant relies.

The applicant relies upon four reports of Dr Westmore dated 16 September 2013, 29 March 2014, 23 August 2014 and 15 November 2014. The Crown relies upon the reports of Professor Greenberg dated 26 April 2014 and 7 September 2014.

It is necessary to set out the facts as the Crown alleges them, at least in summary form, for the purpose of revealing the nature of the trial and the evidence that may need to be adduced.

Facts

In the early afternoon of Thursday 11 April 2013, members of the public called the police reporting a motor vehicle being driven erratically in the Tarrawanna area. The vehicle was described and its behaviour described.

Shortly…

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 Farrow

Details

AGLC: R v Farrow [2014] NSWSC 1781
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1781
Decision Date: 15 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Farrow, the defendant stood accused of criminal charges before a court in Australia. The primary issue at hand was whether the trial should proceed with a judge alone, as opposed to a jury, given the defendant's mental health status. This request was opposed by the Crown. The defendant's legal team argued that the interests of justice necessitated a trial without a jury due to the defendant's alleged mental illness, which they claimed would impact the jury's ability to render a fair verdict. The Crown, however, contested this argument, asserting that the defendant's mental condition was not so severe as to warrant a judge-alone trial.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal framework to assess the defendant's mental health and its implications for the trial process. Specifically, the court needed to consider the conflicting expert opinions on the defendant's mental state and evaluate the impact of one expert's indisposition on the reliability of the evidence. The court also had to apply the test of the "interests of justice" to decide whether a judge-alone trial was warranted under the circumstances.

After carefully considering the evidence and expert testimonies, the court found that the conflicting opinions regarding the defendant's mental health did not definitively establish the defendant's incapacity to stand trial. Additionally, the court held that the indisposition of one of the experts did not sufficiently undermine the remaining evidence. The court concluded that the test of the "interests of justice" was satisfied, as it deemed that a fair trial could still be conducted without a jury. Consequently, the application for a judge-alone trial was dismissed.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application for a judge-alone trial.

Orders