R v Gourlay - [2015] NSWSC 67

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gourlay [2015] NSWSC 67
Hearing dates: 10 February 2015
Decision date: 13 February 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1)With regard to the count of murder, I return a special verdict that the accused is not guilty on the ground of mental illness.
(2)Order that Daniel Michael Gourlay be detained at Long Bay Hospital, or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
(3)Direct the Registrar of the Court, as soon as practicable, to notify the Minister for Health of this judgment and order.
(4)Direct the Registrar of the Court, as soon as practicable, to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of this judgment and order and to provide to that Tribunal the following documentation:
(a)A copy of these reasons for verdict and orders;
(b)A transcript of these proceedings, including of the mention of 3 February 2015; and
(c)A copy of each of the exhibits tendered at trial.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – offences against the person – murder – trial by judge alone – consideration of the affirmative defence of mental illness – accused did physical act – accused suffering from disease of the mind that led to a defect of reason – accused did not appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his act – verdict not guilty on the ground of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132(2)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 165, 184
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39(1)
Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
McNaghten's Case (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Newbury [2012] NSWSC 1361
Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Daniel Michael Gourlay
Representation:
Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
R Wilson (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/321993

Judgment

On 10 February 2015, I ordered (pursuant to s 132(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)) that the pending trial of Daniel Michael Gourlay (the accused) be heard without a jury and by judge alone. I made the order because a document had been filed setting out an election of the accused to that effect, along with the consent of the Crown. In those circumstances, the statute called upon me to make that order.
Immediately thereafter, the accused was arraigned on an indictment. It contained a single count averring that, on 24 October 2013 at Emu Plains in the State of New South Wales, the accused murdered Ian Gourlay. The accused, who at all stages of the trial was represented by a solicitor and barrister very experienced in criminal law, pleaded not guilty on the…

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 Gourlay

Details

AGLC: R v Gourlay [2015] NSWSC 67
Case: [2015] NSWSC 67
Decision Date: 13 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Gourlay was before the court where the accused was charged with the murder of a person. The case was tried by a judge alone, without a jury, due to the accused's plea of not guilty on the basis of mental illness. The central issue for the court to determine was whether the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind that led to a defect of reason at the time of the offence, and if so, whether this defect resulted in the accused not appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his act. The court had to weigh the evidence presented regarding the accused's mental state and consider whether the affirmative defence of mental illness was applicable.

The court examined the evidence and expert opinions regarding the accused's mental health and the impact it had on his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act. It was established that the accused was indeed suffering from a disease of the mind, which resulted in a defect of reason. The court found that this defect prevented the accused from appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his act at the time of the offence. Given these findings, the court determined that the accused was not guilty of murder on the ground of mental illness.

The court's decision was based on the clear evidence that the accused's mental illness led to a defect of reason, which in turn prevented him from understanding the moral wrongfulness of his actions. This conclusion was pivotal in reaching the verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions regarding mental illness as a defence to criminal charges and the established case law on the subject. The final orders of the court were that the accused be found not guilty of murder due to mental illness at the time of the offence.

Orders