R v Huy Pham - [2007] NSWSC 1313

CITATION: R v Huy Pham [2007] NSWSC 1313

HEARING DATE(S): 13 November 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
15 November 2007

JUDGMENT OF: James J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 15 November 2007

DECISION: Accused not guilty by reason of mental illness

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Mental illness - M'Naghten rules - accused not knowing what he was doing was morally wrong

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: M’Naghten Case (1843) 10 Cl&F 200; 8 E.R. 718
Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358

PARTIES: R v Huy Pham

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/3119

COUNSEL: JN Bowers - Crown
JS Manuell - Accused

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

THURSDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2007

2005/3119001-5 REGINA v HUY PHAM
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 13 November 2007 the accused, Huy Pham, was indicted before me in a judge-alone trial on the following charges that:

2 The person named as the victim in the first charge was an uncle of the accused’s wife Joanne Ngo, who is the victim named in the second charge.

3 When indicted on these charges the accused pleaded not guilty to all of them. His counsel informed the court that each plea of not guilty was a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness.

4 Earlier this week, on 12 November, I conducted a judge-alone trial for the purpose of determining the question of the accused’s fitness to be tried on the charges and I found that the accused was fit to be tried on the charges. Dr Bruce Westmore, a psychiatrist retained by the Crown, and Dr Olav Nielssen, a psychiatrist retained by the defence, gave evidence that in their opinion the accused was fit to be tried.

5 The evidence in the present trial of the charges against the accused consisted of the Crown brief, which contained three volumes of witness statements and other evidentiary materials, and reports by Dr Westmore retained by the Crown and by Dr Nielssen retained by the defence. There was no issue about the facts of the offences and the statements of the witnesses clearly establish the following facts beyond reasonable doubt.

6 The accused was married to Joanne Ngo in March 1996. After their marriage the accused and Joanne Ngo lived at her parents home at 51 Coventry…

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 Huy Pham

Details

AGLC: R v Huy Pham [2007] NSWSC 1313
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1313
Decision Date: 15 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Huy Pham, the defendant was charged with murder. The accused, Huy Pham, was found to have killed his partner, however he was deemed to be suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the accused's mental illness negated the mens rea required for the offence of murder. Specifically, whether Pham could understand that what he was doing was morally wrong.

The court examined the application of the M'Naghten rules, which provide that a person is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the act, they were labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature of the act or that it was wrong. The court found that Pham's mental illness, specifically schizophrenia, had impaired his ability to understand the moral wrongness of his actions. The defence presented expert psychiatric evidence which supported this conclusion. The court accepted this evidence, finding that Pham did not have the requisite mens rea for murder due to his severe mental illness.

The court held that Pham was not guilty of murder due to his inability to appreciate the moral wrongness of his actions. Instead, the court found him guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter. The court reasoned that, while Pham's actions were unlawful and caused death, his mental state at the time precluded a finding of murder. The court noted the tragic circumstances of the case, and the need to balance the protection of society with the compassionate treatment of individuals suffering from mental illness.

The court ordered that Pham be detained in a psychiatric facility rather than a correctional centre, reflecting his primary need for psychiatric treatment. The court also noted that Pham's sentence would be reviewed periodically to assess his ongoing mental health and risk to the community.

Orders