IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION
Howie J
TUESDAY 9 JULY 2002
070013/02 R v KIRSTAIN WILLIAM KATARZYNSKI
JUDGMENT
1 Howie J: The accused has been indicted for murder and is currently standing trial before a jury. The deceased was shot by the accused following a number of altercations between them in a hotel in Liverpool in the early hours of the morning of 6 April 2001. There is ample evidence before the jury that the accused was intoxicated as a result of his voluntary consumption of alcohol at the time of the shooting. There is no issue that the accused committed the act which caused the death of the deceased although, it will be a matter for the jury to determine whether the act causing death was voluntary and whether the accused at the time of firing the gun had the necessary mental state for the offence of murder.
2 The Crown has conceded that on the evidence led in the trial it is open for the jury to find that there was a real possibility that when the accused shot the deceased he was acting in his own self defence. The Crown has also conceded that the applicable law relevant to that issue is Part 11 Division 3 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), see R v Michael James Taylor[2002] NSWSC 610.
3 The relevant provisions of the Crimes Act are, therefore, as follows:
418 Self-defence — when available (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence. (2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary:
(a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or (b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or (c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or…
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 Katarzynski
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
Case
[2002] NSWSC 613
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Katarzynski involved the accused, Katarzynski, who was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute centred on whether the accused's actions were justified under the doctrine of self-defence, particularly considering the accused's self-induced intoxication at the time of the incident.
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether self-induced intoxication could be considered in determining the reasonableness of the accused's response under self-defence, and if so, how it should impact the assessment of the accused's capacity to act reasonably. The court also needed to assess whether the accused's intoxication was so severe that it negated his ability to form the requisite intent to commit the assault.
The court held that self-induced intoxication could be relevant to the assessment of the accused's capacity to act reasonably in self-defence. However, it was not determinative of the accused's capacity to act in self-defence. The intoxication must have significantly impaired the accused's ability to form the requisite intent for the assault to be justified under self-defence. The court found that the accused's intoxication, while a factor, did not absolve him of criminal liability for the assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The court ordered that the accused be found guilty of the charge, noting that while his intoxication was a mitigating factor, it did not entirely justify his actions under the doctrine of self-defence. The accused was sentenced accordingly.