R v Haydar (No.3) - [2017] NSWSC 159

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Haydar (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 159
Hearing dates: 22 February 2017; 23 February 2017; 24 February 2017; 27 February2017; 7 March 2017; 20 March 2017; 21 March 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 31 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1)   I find the accused guilty of the offences in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment presented on 22 February 2017.
(2)   I direct that convictions be entered for the offence of murder, and the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
(3)   I stand the proceedings over to 2pm on 5 May 2017 for proceedings on sentence.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone
CRIMINAL LAW – wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – trial by judge alone
CRIMINAL LAW – defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind – depression – whether capacity to control self substantially impaired – whether impairment so substantial so as to warrant reduction of liability from murder to manslaughter
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – whether intent to kill or intent to inflict grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: R v Haydar (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 131
Texts Cited: Not applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Haydar Haydar (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Barr (Crown)
J Stratton SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Zahr Partners (Accused)

File Number(s): 2015/95401
Publication restriction: Not applicable

REASONS FOR VERDICT

On 22 February 2017, the Crown presented an Indictment against Haydar Haydar which contained three counts.
The accused, Haydar Haydar, entered pleas in respect of each of those counts. The counts and the pleas are as follows:

For that he on 30 March 2015 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did murder Salwa Haydar.

Plea – Not Guilty of Murder but Guilty of Manslaughter.

For that he on 30 March 2015 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did wound Ola Haydar with intent to cause Grievous Bodily Harm to Salwa Haydar.

Plea – Not Guilty.

For that he on 30 March 2015 at Bexley in the State of New South Wales, did recklessly wound Ola Haydar.

Plea – Guilty.

I note that Count 3 is an alternative count to Count 2.
The Crown did not accept the plea of guilty to manslaughter in full discharge of the first count on the Indictment. The Crown did not accept the plea of guilty to Count 3 in satisfaction of Count 2.
The trial is being conducted by a judge alone as a result of an application made by the accused on 21 February 2017. The circumstances surrounding that application, and the reasons for which I made the order, can be found at R v Haydar (No.2) [2017] NSWSC 131.
Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 provides for certain requirements of a…

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 Haydar (No.3)

Details

AGLC: R v Haydar (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 159
Case: [2017] NSWSC 159
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Haydar, the defendant was convicted of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Beach. The defendant appealed against his convictions, arguing that his severe depression at the time of the incident substantially impaired his ability to control his actions, thereby reducing his culpability from murder to manslaughter.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's depression at the time of the incident constituted a substantial impairment of his ability to control his actions, and if so, whether this impairment was sufficient to reduce his liability from murder to manslaughter. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the defendant acted with the intent to kill or with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm.

The court examined the evidence and concluded that the defendant's depression, while severe, did not substantially impair his capacity to control his actions. The court found that the defendant's actions were deliberate and premeditated, indicating an intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Consequently, the court upheld the trial judge's findings, rejecting the appeal. The convictions for murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm were affirmed.

Orders