Legal Research
Cases
R v Jennings

R v Jennings

Case [2005] NSWSC 789 11 August 2005

Mental Illness Defence

Substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind

Complicity

Drugs

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 01-04/08/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

11 August 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF:
Kirby J

DECISION:
I find Mr Jennings not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness; In accordance with s39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, I order that Trent Jennings be detained in a hospital as a forensic patient at such place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice & Procedure - Judge Alone trial - mental illness defence - alternative of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind - compliction of drugs taken before stabbing.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Mental Health Act 1990

CASES CITED:
M'Naghten (1833) 10 Cl and Fin 200 [8ER 718]
R v Ayoub (1984) 2 NSWLR 511

PARTIES:
Regina
Trent Jennings

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/3231

COUNSEL:
P K Lynch (Crown)
P M Winch (Acc)

SOLICITORS:
K Calder - DPP (Crown)
McGowan Lawyers (Acc)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

JUSTICE DAVID KIRBY

2004/3231 REGINA v Trent JENNINGS

JUDGMENT ON VERDICT

1 KIRBY J: Trent Jennings stands charged with the murder of Giuseppe Vitale on 30 December 2003 at Narwee. Having had advice from Counsel, and with the consent of the Crown, Mr Jennings has elected to be tried by a Judge sitting without a jury.

2 When the accused was arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter. His Counsel identified the basis of that plea. Medical evidence would be called in his case that, at the time of inflicting a single stab wound upon Mr Vitale, the accused was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind (s23A Crimes Act 1900).

3 The Crown declined to accept that plea. It, too, foreshadowed medical evidence in the Crown case. A forensic psychiatrist, Dr Westmore, would give evidence that, at the time of fatally wounding Mr Vitale, the accused was suffering from mental illness, such that he was not responsible in law for his actions. According to the Crown, the appropriate verdict was not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental illness.

4 The matter has therefore proceeded as an investigation into the state of mind of Mr Jennings. There was no dispute as to the way in which Mr Vitale met his death, nor that the fatal injury was inflicted by the accused.

5 Let me first describe the circumstances leading to Mr Vitale's death.

The incident.

6 Trent Jennings was born on 14 February 1985. At the time of these events he was approaching his nineteenth birthday. He worked as a casual waiter in a city hotel. He lived at Nirimba Avenue, Narwee. He was homosexual.

7 On 30 December 2003, Mr Jennings spent much of…

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 Jennings

Details

AGLC: R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
Case: [2005] NSWSC 789
Decision Date: 11 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Jennings, the defendant stood before the court, accused of a stabbing incident that resulted in serious harm to the victim. The case was tried by a judge alone, without a jury. The defendant raised a defence of mental illness, contending that at the time of the incident, he was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind, which diminished his responsibility for the crime. The defendant had ingested a significant quantity of drugs prior to the stabbing, which he claimed affected his mental state.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the defendant's substantial impairment by an abnormality of mind, as a result of the drugs taken, was sufficient to establish a defence under the relevant criminal statutes. The court needed to assess the extent to which the drugs impaired the defendant's ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind was an appropriate alternative to the more traditional defence of mental illness.

The court found that the defendant's substantial impairment by abnormality of mind, triggered by the drugs ingested, did indeed diminish his responsibility for the stabbing. The court concluded that the defendant's ability to form rational judgement and exercise self-control was significantly impaired. Consequently, the court accepted that the defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind was applicable in this case. The judge found the defendant guilty of the stabbing but with diminished responsibility due to his impaired mental state at the time of the offence. The court ordered that the defendant be committed to a mental health facility for treatment and supervision.

Orders