R v Gassy

Case [2004] SASC 338

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal: Voir Dire (Murder))

R v GASSY

Reasons for Rulings of The Honourable Justice Vanstone

28 October 2004

EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY AND RELEVANCY - FACTS SHOWING STATE OF MIND - MOTIVE

Accused charged with murder by shooting - victim involved in sequence of events which led to accused's deregistration in 1997 as a medical practitioner - admissibility of that course of events including expressions of opinion as to mental state of accused during relevant period and responses of accused to such opinions as demonstrating motive - admissibility of documents found at home of accused showing personal details of other persons also involved in accused's deregistration - whether exclusionary rule attracted by such evidence.

Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), s 51; Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-IV  (4th ed., Washington DC, American Psychiatric Assoc, 1994), referred to.
R v Von Einem (1985) 38 SASR 207; R v Turney (1990) 52 SASR 438, applied.
Makin v Attorney-General (NSW) [1894] AC 57; R v Perry (1982) 150 CLR 580; R v Thompson (1989) 169 CLR 1; R v Harriman (1989) 167 CLR 590; Pfennig v R (1994-95) 182 CLR 461; R v Ball [1911] AC 47, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - SIMILAR FACTS - RELEVANCE - PROOF OF IDENTITY OF ACCUSED

Admissibility of evidence of suspicious incident not amounting to crime occurring at a psychiatrists congress attended by victim six months prior to her death - evidence identifying accused as man at centre of incident - parallels between accused's conduct during both periods - whether exclusionary rule attracted.

Hoch v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 292, applied.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WARRANTS, ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND INCIDENTAL POWERS - WARRANTS - SEARCH WARRANTS - ISSUE AND VALIDITY

Searches of home of accused conducted under authority of warrants issued under Search Warrants Act 1985 (NSW) - whether warrants invalid - whether court should conduct inquiry into events leading to application for warrant and issue of warrant - whether police conduct in relation to accused's mother unlawful or improper.

Search Warrants Act 1985 (NSW), s 5, s 6, s 11, s 12A, s 13, s 14, referred to.
Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 1998) (1998) 70 SASR 281; Bunning v Cross (1977-78) 141 CLR 54; Ousley v The Queen (1997) 192 CLR 69; R v Williams (1976) 14 SASR 1; R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83; Question of Law Reserved (No 5 of 1999) (2000) 76 SASR 356, applied.
R v Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION - PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE - ADMINISTERING CAUTION

Whether conversations between accused and police during the search admissible - whether unfair to admit evidence against accused - evidence excluded.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING…

Continue reading R v Gassy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Gassy [2004] SASC 338
Case
[2004] SASC 338
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gassy, the accused was charged with the murder of a victim, and the case involved significant events leading up to the accused's deregistration as a medical practitioner in 1997. The court had to decide on the admissibility of evidence related to the events leading to the accused's deregistration, including expressions of opinion about the accused's mental state during the relevant period and the accused's responses to such opinions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether documents found at the accused's home, which contained personal details of other persons involved in the deregistration, were admissible and whether any exclusionary rule applied to such evidence.

The court examined whether the evidence of events leading up to the accused's deregistration, including psychiatric opinions and the accused's responses, was relevant to demonstrating the accused's motive. The court also deliberated on the admissibility of documents found at the accused's home, which pertained to other individuals involved in the deregistration process, and whether these documents were subject to any exclusionary rule. The court assessed the relevance and admissibility of this evidence in the context of establishing the accused's motive for the alleged murder.

The court concluded that the evidence of the events leading to the accused's deregistration, including psychiatric opinions and the accused's responses, was relevant to establishing motive and was therefore admissible. The court found that the documents found at the accused's home, which contained personal details of other persons involved in the deregistration, were also admissible as they were relevant to the accused's state of mind and did not attract any exclusionary rule. The court's reasoning was based on the relevance of the evidence to the accused's motive and state of mind at the time of the alleged offence.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence of the events leading to the accused's deregistration, including psychiatric opinions and the accused's responses, was admissible to demonstrate motive. Additionally, the documents found at the accused's home, which contained personal details of other persons involved in the deregistration, were also admissible as they were relevant to the accused's state of mind and did not attract any exclusionary rule. The jury's verdict of guilty to the charge of murder was upheld based on the admissibility and relevance of this evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On 23 September 2004 the jury returned a verdict of guilty to the charge. Consequently it is necessary to publish reasons for the rulings I made. I now set out those reasons under various headings.Events leading to deregistration; psychiatric evidence; later documents in accused’s possession referring to personnel involved Among the papers are numerous documents relevant to a series of events which ultimately led to Dr Gassy’s name being removed from the Register of Medical Practitioners in New South Wales. On one view, Dr Tobin could be seen to have initiated that procedure, because in July 1994 she wrote to the Medical Board bringing to its attention the fact that Dr Gassy, a staff member, had taken leave from his position at the St George’s Hospital, and that psychiatric grounds had been cited for that absence. She did so in her capacity as Director of the Psychiatric Unit at the hospital and as Area Director Mental Health, Southern Sydney Area Health Service. In response, the Medical Board initiated a process in which Dr John Woodforde, a psychiatrist, was asked to examine Dr Gassy and report to the Board as to his fitness to practise. As a result of consideration of his report, an Impaired Registrants Panel was convened, pursuant to the Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW), for the purpose of providing a “non-disciplinary alternative” for the establishment of a diagnosis, the review of treatment and protection of the public interest. The Panel consisted of Dr Peter Arnold and Dr Michael Pasfield. Dr Tobin gave evidence before the panel. Dr Woodforde’s report expressing the view that Dr Gassy suffered from a delusional disorder, was before it. On 2 September 1994 the Panel published its report. It found that Dr Gassy was “currently suffering from delusional disorder” and it recommended that Dr Gassy’s right to practise be made subject to certain conditions. The recommended conditions were apparently endorsed on Dr Gassy’s registration. One of those conditions required him to attend for a review of his situation in November, having undergone a further consultation with Dr Woodforde. Dr Gassy failed to so attend. He advised that he would not attend as required. In any event the matter was reviewed and in due course that led to the convening of a Professional Standards Committee to hear a complaint against Dr Gassy laid under s 51(1) Medical Practice Act 1992 (NSW). The complaint alleged non-compliance with the conditions imposed and that Dr Gassy was “not competent to practise medicine”. The Professional Standards Committee comprised Dr D Child (chairperson), Dr Kathleen Wilhelm, a psychiatrist, and Ms Ruth Cotton. It sat on 10 April 1995. The Committee took evidence from Dr Jonathon Phillips, Dr W Andrews and Dr Woodforde. Dr Tobin played no part in the Committee hearing, although her July 1994 letter to the Medical Board was tendered. The Committee’s findings were that Dr Gassy was guilty of “unsatisfactory professional conduct” in breaching undertakings arising out of the conditions recommended by the Impaired Registrants Panel. The Committee accepted that Dr Gassy had been psychotic, albeit transiently, in late 1994 but it found no evidence of paranoid ideation or psychotic thought processes during the hearing. Dr Gassy was found to be competent to practise medicine upon certain conditions.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.