Legal Research
Cases
R v Hadler

R v Hadler

Case [2018] NSWSC 1151 26 July 2018

Criminal Liability

Mental Illness Defence

Trial by Judge Alone

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hadler [2018] NSWSC 1151
Hearing dates: 29 June 2018
Date of orders: 26 July 2018
Decision date: 26 July 2018
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Order that the trial of the accused is to be heard before a judge alone, pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – accused charged with murder – application for trial by judge alone – application opposed by Crown – sole issue at trial question of the availability of a mental illness defence – whether a judge is better able to assess forensic psychiatric evidence than a jury - questions of efficiency of trial – drug use by accused - asserted prejudice to accused if tried by jury – potential for the accused to become unfit to be tried due to length and stress of jury trial
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; (2008) 232 CLR 438
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414
Long v R (2002) 128 A Crim R 11
O’Hare v DPP [2000] NSWSC 430
R v Belghar (2012) 217 A Crim R 1; [2012] NSWCCA 86
R v Bell NSWCCA 8.10.1998 unreported
R v Burrell [2004] NSWCCA 336
R v D’Arcy (2003) 140 A Crim R 303
R v Dudko (2002) 132 A Crim R 371
R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 28
R v Jamal (2008) 72 NSWLR 258; (2008) 191 A Crim R 1
R v M’Naghten (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; 8 ER 718
R v Milat NSWCCA 26.2.1998 unreported
R v Richards [1999] NSWCCA 114; (1999) 107 A Crim R 318
Radford v The Queen (1985) 42 SASR 266
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; 86 CLR 358 State of Western Australia v Rayney [2011] WASC 326
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; 55 CLR 182
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Texts Cited: Lord Devlin, Trial by Jury (1966, revised edition)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Michael Hadler
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Hughes as Crown Prosecutor
Ms S Beckett for the accused
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2016/00286148
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: By Notice of Motion filed on 18 June 2018, the accused asks the Court to order that his trial on a charge of murder is heard by a judge sitting alone. The Crown opposes the application.
On 4 May 2018, the accused was arraigned on an indictment charging that, on 23 September 2016, he murdered Brian Hamilton. A plea of not guilty was entered to the charge and the accused’s trial was set down to be heard on 12 November 2018. The Court was advised at arraignment that…

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 Hadler

Details

AGLC: R v Hadler [2018] NSWSC 1151
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1151
Decision Date: 26 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hadler was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Hadler, was charged with the murder of a person. In response to this charge, Hadler applied for a trial by a judge alone rather than a jury. The Crown opposed this application, leading to a legal dispute over the appropriate method of trial. The central issue for the court was whether the judge would be better equipped to assess the psychiatric evidence relevant to Hadler's defence of mental illness than a jury, particularly in light of his drug use and the potential impact of a lengthy and stressful jury trial on his fitness to be tried.

The court considered the nature of the psychiatric evidence and the efficiency of the trial process. It examined whether the complexity of the evidence and the specific concerns about the accused's mental state and drug use warranted a trial by judge alone. The court also weighed the potential prejudice to Hadler if he were to be tried by a jury, given the likelihood that the drug use and mental illness defence would be contentious issues. Ultimately, the court determined that the judge was indeed better suited to handle the intricacies of the psychiatric evidence and the unique circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled in favour of Hadler's application for a trial by judge alone. The court found that the complexity of the psychiatric evidence, combined with the accused's drug use and the risk of becoming unfit to be tried, made a trial by jury unsuitable. The judge was deemed better positioned to assess the credibility and weight of the forensic psychiatric evidence and to manage the trial efficiently. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the need to protect the accused's rights under these specific circumstances. The final order was that Hadler's trial would proceed before a judge alone.

Orders