R v JM (Verdict) - [2024] NSWSC 773

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JM (Verdict) [2024] NSWSC 773
Hearing dates: 20 May 2024, 21 May 2024, 22 May 2024, 23 May 2024, 24 May 2024, 27 May 2024, 28 May 2024, 29 May 2024, 30 May 2024, 31 May 2024 and written submissions dated 7 June 2024 and 11 June 2024
Date of orders: 21 June 2024
Decision date: 21 June 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
Count 1: the accused is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
Count 2: the accused is not guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm – trial by judge alone – where the accused a young person at the time of the alleged offences – stabbing – Beef Week – melee at a KFC restaurant – numerous young persons involved – where the event is captured by CCTV and mobile phone – where the deceased exhibited significant animus towards the accused – where the accused suffers from a cognitive impairment – Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) – defence of substantial impairment – self-defence – knuckledusters – guitar capo – whether the accused believed his conduct was necessary in order to defend himself – whether the conduct of the accused was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he perceived them – excessive self-defence – accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence – accused not guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – orders made

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v JM [2024] NSWSC 584
Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
R v Smith (1837) 8 C&P 173

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
JM (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Watts (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) Limited (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/155260
Publication restriction: Statutory Non-Publication Order re identity of the Accused or any person who was a child at the time of the events. The names of all persons subject to this order have been allocated pseudonyms.

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: On 20 May 2024, the trial of JM (the accused) commenced before me, sitting as a judge alone.
The accused was arraigned on an indictment charging him with an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) that is, an offence of murder, and a further offence contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act that being an offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty to those offences. These are my reasons for my verdicts.
The accused is charged as follows:

Count 1

On 29 May 2022, at Casino, in the State…

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 JM (Verdict)

Details

AGLC: R v JM (Verdict) [2024] NSWSC 773
Case: [2024] NSWSC 773
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v JM (Verdict) involved a young person accused of murder and wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. The incident occurred during Beef Week at a KFC restaurant, where a large-scale brawl broke out involving numerous young individuals. The deceased had exhibited significant animosity towards the accused prior to the altercation. The accused, who suffered from a cognitive impairment, including Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), claimed self-defence and substantial impairment as defences. The case was tried by a judge alone, with the proceedings captured on CCTV and mobile phone footage.

The primary legal issues revolved around the accused's defences of substantial impairment and self-defence, particularly whether his conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he perceived them. The court had to determine if the accused's actions were necessary for self-defence and if they were excessive, potentially amounting to manslaughter. The court also had to consider the accused's cognitive impairment and its impact on his perception and response during the incident.

The court found that while the accused's conduct was a reasonable response to the perceived threat, it was excessive, resulting in the death of the deceased. Consequently, the accused was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter due to excessive self-defence. The court also ruled that the accused was not guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court took into account the accused's cognitive impairment, the significant animosity exhibited by the deceased, and the chaotic nature of the event in reaching its decision.

The final orders included the acquittal of the accused on the charge of murder and the conviction of manslaughter due to excessive self-defence. The court also discharged the accused from the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Orders