R v Konidaris - [2014] VSC 89

Revised
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0087 of 2013

THE QUEEN
v
ROSS KONIDARIS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 February 2014
DATE OF RULING:	27 February 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Konidaris
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 89	Revised 27 March 2014

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Defence of Mental Impairment – Murder – Accused murdered grandmother and grandfather – Accused knew the nature and quality of conduct – Accused did not know that the conduct was wrong – Section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) – Meaning of ‘mental impairment’ - Whether psychosis drug induced or manifestation of underlying schizophrenic illness – Directed that verdicts of not-guilty be entered in respect of both charges.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Silbert SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Marsh	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Ross Konidaris is currently indicted on two counts of murder. It is alleged that on 22 December 2012 he shot both his grandparents, Stavroula and Triandafilos Konidaris. He is then alleged to have set fire to their house.

To both charges he has pleaded not guilty because of mental impairment pursuant to s.20(1) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried Act) 1997 (The Act).

The prosecution and Mr Konidaris’ legal advisors have agreed that the proposed evidence in the trial establishes the defence of mental impairment under s 20 of the Act. It follows that the parties have agreed between themselves that the proposed evidence establishes that at the time of the murderous acts Mr Konidaris either:

· did not know the nature and quality of his conduct; (s 20(1)(a)) or
· did not know that his conduct was wrong in that he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. (s 20(1)(b))
In this case, the preponderance of psychiatric opinion argues in favour of a s 20(1)(b) conclusion.

In circumstances where the parties agree that the defence of mental impairment is established I am empowered to hear the evidence that relates to that issue, and if I am satisfied the defence of mental impairment is established I may direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded (s 21(4)(a) of the Act). Alternatively, if I am not satisfied that the defence is established I am obliged to direct that Mr Konidaris be tried by a jury (s 21(4)(b) of the Act).

This matter was originally listed before me on 22 January 2014. On that occasion reports from three psychiatrists, Drs Sullivan, Patel and Skinner, were sought to be relied upon by the parties. I determined that I wished to hear from those witnesses and the matter was adjourned until a suitable date could be arranged.

The sole issue before me in this…

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 Konidaris

Details

AGLC: R v Konidaris [2014] VSC 89
Case: [2014] VSC 89
Decision Date: 27 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the accused, Konidaris, stood trial for the murder of his grandparents. The prosecution alleged that Konidaris had intentionally killed his grandparents, actions that were premeditated and deliberate. The defence argued that at the time of the offence, Konidaris suffered from a mental impairment that rendered him unfit to appreciate the nature and quality of his conduct or understand that it was wrong.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Konidaris's psychosis, which led to the murders, was a drug-induced condition or a manifestation of an underlying schizophrenic illness. The court was required to determine the meaning of 'mental impairment' as defined in section 20(1)(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). This involved examining the nature and extent of Konidaris's impairment and whether it met the statutory criteria for a defence of mental impairment.

The court found that Konidaris's psychosis was drug-induced, not an underlying schizophrenic illness. The court reasoned that at the time of the offence, Konidaris was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his conduct or understand that it was wrong. The court directed that verdicts of not-guilty be entered in respect of both charges of murder. This decision hinged on the understanding that Konidaris's drug-induced psychosis sufficiently impaired his mental faculties to the extent that he was not criminally responsible for his actions.

Orders