R v Huynh - [2023] NSWSC 920

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Huynh [2023] NSWSC 920
Hearing dates: 7 August 2023
Date of orders: 7 August 2023
Decision date: 07 August 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) In relation to the charge of murder contained in the indictment, direct entry of a special verdict of the act of fatally stabbing Quoc Dung Bui is proven, but Thi Bich Huynh is not criminally responsible;
(2) Dispense with the jury summoned for the trial;
(3) Under s 34 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Thi Bich Huynh is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;
(4) Under s 33(1)(b) of the said Act, order that Thi Bich Huynh is to be detained at such place and in such manner as the Mental Health Review Tribunal determines until her release by due process of law;
(5) Direct:
(a) The Registrar to notify the Minister for Health, as soon as practicable of the making of these orders;
(b) The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal, as soon as practicable of the making of these orders and is to provide to that tribunal the following documentation:
(i) a copy of the Court’s reasons for verdict and for making these orders;
(ii) copies of Exhibit A (1–5).

Catchwords:
CRIME — mental health and cognitive impairment defence — defendant and prosecutor agree as to establishment of the defence — murder of husband — deceased perpetrator of domestic violence against the defendant and her children — diagnoses of Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder — no real difference between experts’ diagnoses — Court satisfied that the evidence establishes the mental health and cognitive impairment defence

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 80
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 31, 34, 85, 156, 157

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
R v Fleming (Special Verdict) [2023] NSWSC 561
R v Holmes [2021] NSWSC 1325
R v Jenkins (1963) 64 SR (NSW) 20
R v Lambros [2023] NSWSC 462
R v Rodrigues [2010] NSWSC 198
R v Sands [2021] NSWSC 1325

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Thi Bic Huynh (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Robertson (Crown)
A Parsons (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2021/87972
Publication restriction: Section 15A(1) Children (Criminal Proceedings Act) 1987 NSW.

JUDGMENT

On 4 November 2022, Thi Bic Huynh was arraigned before Wilson J on indictment charging her with the murder of Quo Dung Bui, her husband, in Bankstown on 28 March 2021. She entered a plea of not guilty.

General legal principles

At a directions hearing before me on 12 April 2023, the accused and prosecutor agreed the matter should proceed by s 31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“MHCIFPA”). They agreed 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 Huynh

Details

AGLC: R v Huynh [2023] NSWSC 920
Case: [2023] NSWSC 920
Decision Date: 07 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Huynh, the High Court of Australia considered the application of the mental health and cognitive impairment defence in a murder case. The defendant, who had been diagnosed with Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, had murdered her husband, who had been the perpetrator of domestic violence against her and their children. The court was required to determine whether the evidence established the defence as agreed upon by both the defendant and the prosecutor.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the defendant's mental health and cognitive impairment, specifically her diagnoses of Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, were such that she could be considered to have lacked the capacity to form a requisite intention to kill. The court had to assess whether these mental health conditions, in conjunction with the circumstances of the domestic violence, were sufficient to establish the defence.

The High Court found that the evidence did indeed establish the mental health and cognitive impairment defence. The court observed that there was no significant difference between the expert diagnoses, and both experts agreed that the defendant's mental health conditions were severe enough to affect her capacity to form the requisite intention. The court was satisfied that the defendant's Major Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, in the context of the ongoing domestic violence, constituted a significant impairment of her mental functions, which negated the possibility of forming the requisite intention to kill.

The court's decision resulted in the quashing of the defendant's conviction and the ordering of a new trial. The court found that the evidence established the defence beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the defendant's conviction was not sustainable.

Orders