Legal Research
Cases
R v Jawid

R v Jawid

Case [2022] NSWSC 788 21 June 2022

Criminal Liability

Mental Health Defence

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jawid [2022] NSWSC 788
Hearing dates: 14 June 2022
Date of orders: 21 June 2022
Decision date: 21 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
(1) I return a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.
(2) I order that the accused be detained pursuant to s 33 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), in an appropriate correctional centre, or in such facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine, until he is released by due process of law.
(3) I refer the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – offences – murder – trial — judge alone – where accused stabbed the deceased multiple times - accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment – Crown asserted defence of mental health impairment under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – whether Crown could assert defence of mental illness – where psychiatrists qualified on behalf of Crown and accused agreed that accused did not know that his acts of stabbing the deceased were wrong – where Crown could raise the defence in circumstances where accused had put mental illness in issue – proof was on the balance of probabilities whether raised by the accused or the Crown - special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 4C, 23A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 132
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 141, 191
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 35
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 ss 4, 28, 29, 30, 33

Cases Cited:
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511
R v Brewer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1547
R v Cottle [1958] NZLR 999
R v Damic [1982] 2 NSWLR 750
R v Davidson (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 2011
R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
R v Foy (1922) 39 WN (NSW) 21
R v Issa (Unrep., Supreme Court of NSW, Sperling J, 16 October 1995)
R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
R v Joyce [1970] SASR 184
R v Meddings [1966] VR 306
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
R v Waszczuk [2012] NSWSC 1080
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; [1990] HCA 49

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Jawid Jawid (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
G James QC, E James & A Sapienza (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Oxford Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/209572
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Jawid Jawid was arraigned before me on 14 June 2022 charged with the following offence:

That on 16 July 2020, at Pyrmont in the State of New…

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 Jawid

Details

AGLC: R v Jawid [2022] NSWSC 788
Case: [2022] NSWSC 788
Decision Date: 21 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jawid involved the appellant, Jawid, who was charged with the murder of a deceased individual. Jawid pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but admitted to manslaughter by reason of substantial impairment. The Crown argued that Jawid's mental health impairment should be considered under section 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The case was heard by a single judge in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Crown could assert the defence of mental illness when the accused had already put the issue of mental illness in question and whether the proof of mental illness was required to be established on the balance of probabilities regardless of whether the accused or the Crown raised the issue. The court had to determine whether the Crown could raise the defence of mental illness when the accused had already put the issue of mental illness in question and whether the proof of mental illness was required to be established on the balance of probabilities regardless of whether the accused or the Crown raised the issue.

The court found that the Crown could assert the defence of mental illness even if the accused had already put the issue of mental illness in question. The court held that the proof of mental illness was required to be established on the balance of probabilities regardless of whether the accused or the Crown raised the issue. The court found that the psychiatrists qualified on behalf of the Crown and the accused agreed that Jawid did not know that his acts of stabbing the deceased were wrong. The court found that Jawid was not criminally responsible for the offence of murder and entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

The court ordered that Jawid be detained in a psychiatric facility for an indefinite period of time.

Orders