R v Janzow - [2015] SASC 194

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v JANZOW
[2015] SASC 194
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan
21 December 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT - DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL INFIRMITY
The defendant was charged with the murder of Luca Dayyan Janzow. He pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence.
The defendant conceded the objective elements of murder. The prosecution conceded the defendant was not mentally competent to commit murder. Pursuant to s 269E, the Court exercised its discretion to proceed firstly with a trial of mental competence.
The Court considered all relevant psychiatric reports and statements. The opinions of the examining psychiatrists are accepted. The defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder. The objective elements of murder are established.
Held:
1. The Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the objective elements of murder are established.
2. The Court finds on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was suffering a mental illness at the time he killed Luca, and did not know his conduct was wrong. The defendant is not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence.
3. The defendant is liable to supervision, subject to a limiting term of life.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, s 269C, s 269A(1), s 269E, s 269FB(1), s 269O(1)(b)(i), s 269(3), referred to.

R v JANZOW
[2015] SASC 194
Criminal

SULAN J: The defendant, David Janzow, is charged with the murder of Luca Dayyan Janzow at Athelstone on 8 July 2014. He pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence.
On 14 December 2015 I found the defendant not guilty of murder on the ground of mental incompetence. I declared that he was mentally incompetent to commit the offence and I declared that he was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the Act’). I now provide my reasons.
The issue of mental incompetence
Section 269C of the Act provides:
269C—Mental competence
A person is mentally incompetent to commit an offence if, at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, the person is suffering from a mental impairment and, in consequence of the mental impairment—
(a) does not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) does not know that the conduct is wrong; or
(c) is unable to control the conduct.
Mental impairment is defined in s 269A(1) of the Act as including:
269A—Interpretation
...
(a) a mental illness; or
(b) an intellectual disability; or
(c) a disability or impairment of the mind resulting from senility,
but does not include intoxication;
Section 269E of the Act provides inter alia that where the defendant raises a defence of mental incompetence, the trial Judge has a discretion to proceed first with the trial of mental competence.
Counsel…

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 Janzow

Details

AGLC: R v Janzow [2015] SASC 194
Case: [2015] SASC 194
Decision Date: 21 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Janzow involved a defendant who was charged with the murder of a three-year-old boy, Luca. The case was heard in the relevant criminal court where the defendant claimed he was not guilty due to a mental health condition that affected his ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was legally insane at the time of the offence and whether he understood that his actions were wrong.

The legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the defendant's mental condition constituted a disease of the mind and whether he had the capacity to understand that his conduct was wrong. The court had to consider medical evidence regarding the defendant's mental state and assess whether the prosecution had proved the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to balance the evidence of the defendant's mental illness with the objective elements of the crime of murder.

In its decision, the court found that the defendant was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, and on the balance of probabilities, he did not know that his conduct was wrong. Consequently, the court determined that the defendant was not guilty of murder by reason of mental incompetence. The court also noted the plea from the victim's family for greater awareness and assistance for those with mental health issues. The court declared the defendant liable to supervision and made a supervision order with a limiting term of life.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I trust that those who are charged with the task of dealing with mental health issues in our community will consider Ms Trinne’s plea for greater awareness and greater assistance for those in need of mental health treatment. Conclusion I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the objective elements of murder have been established. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was suffering a mental illness at the time he killed Luca, and that he did not know that his conduct was wrong. I find the defendant not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental incompetence. I declare the defendant liable to supervision. I make a supervision order pursuant to s 269O(1)(b)(i), and set a limiting term of life.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.