R v Franklin - [2020] NSWSC 1134

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Franklin [2020] NSWSC 1134
Hearing dates: 10 – 25 August 2020
Decision date: 27 August 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
Verdicts of not guilty on the ground of mental illness on a count of murder and two counts of arson
(1) Mr Cody Franklin is to be detained at such place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
(2) The Registrar must notify the Minister for Health, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the terms of this judgment and the orders made by me.
(3) The Registrar must notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and Justice Health, as soon as reasonably practicable, of the terms of this judgment and the orders made by me, and to provide those bodies with the following documentation:
(a) A copy of these reasons for verdict and my orders;
(b) A transcript of these proceedings;
(c) A copy of the exhibits tendered at trial; and
(d) A copy of the victim impact statements.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – special hearing – single count of murder and two counts of arson – accused chronically and severely mentally ill – circumstantial case – transactional evidence – powerful case against the accused – exclusion of alternative hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt – proof of physical elements only of offences in light of the defence of mental illness having been raised – unanimous position of forensic psychiatrists and parties as to appropriate verdicts if physical elements established – verdicts of not guilty on the ground of mental illness returned

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1900 (NSW), ss 39, 43

Cases Cited:
Hawkinsv The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Cody Franklin (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Kimbell (Crown)
I Nash (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Cunninghams – The Law Practice (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/202326
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Introduction

Some time ago, Mr Cody Franklin (the accused) was found unfit to stand trial due to mental disturbance. For that reason, when he was arraigned on 10 August 2020 in the Supreme Court sitting at Orange, the proceedings were not a trial, but rather a special hearing. And because neither the Crown nor the accused had elected for the special hearing to be determined by a jury, the arraignment occurred solely before me.
The indictment contained three counts. The first averred that, on 5 June 2017 in the regional centre of Parkes, the accused had murdered Mr Arthur Phelan (the deceased).
The second averred that on the same date and at the same place, the accused had intentionally damaged by fire unit 3 of the building located at 2 Grenfell Street, in the same town.
The third averred that, on the same date and in the same place, the accused intentionally…

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 Franklin

Details

AGLC: R v Franklin [2020] NSWSC 1134
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1134
Decision Date: 27 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Franklin involved a single count of murder and two counts of arson. The accused was chronically and severely mentally ill. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of a state in Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven the physical elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt in light of the defence of mental illness raised by the accused. The court was required to decide whether the exclusion of alternative hypotheses beyond reasonable doubt was sufficient to satisfy the requirement of proving the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the prosecution had presented a powerful circumstantial case against the accused, including transactional evidence. However, the court considered the appropriate legal standard for establishing the physical elements of the offences in light of the defence of mental illness. The court noted that the unanimous position of the forensic psychiatrists and the parties was that the appropriate verdicts would be not guilty on the ground of mental illness if the physical elements were established. The court held that in such circumstances, the prosecution only needed to prove the physical elements of the offences in light of the defence of mental illness having been raised. The court found that the prosecution had satisfied this standard and returned verdicts of not guilty on the ground of mental illness.

No further orders were made by the court. The accused was not subject to any penalty or further legal proceedings in relation to the offences charged. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of considering the appropriate legal standard for establishing the physical elements of offences in light of a defence of mental illness. The court's approach in this case ensures that the accused's rights are protected while also ensuring that the prosecution's case is fairly evaluated.

Orders