R v Le - [2019] NSWSC 483

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Le [2019] NSWSC 483
Hearing dates: 25 – 29 March 2019, 1 – 4 April 2019, and 8 – 9 April 2019
Date of orders: 30 April 2019
Decision date: 30 April 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
Verdict:
(1) in relation to count 1, the accused is not guilty of murder but, on the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence of manslaughter, being an offence available as an alternative to the murder offence charged.
(2) in respect of count 2, on the limited evidence available, the accused committed the offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon charged.

Catchwords:
CRIME – special hearing conducted before judge alone – counts of murder and robbery armed with an offensive weapon – circumstantial case – verdicts available that, on the limited evidence, offences charged committed
CRIME – murder – partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW) – where accused suffered from schizoaffective disorder at the time of offending – whether accused suffering from abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition – whether accused’s capacity to understand events, judge whether actions right or wrong or control self was impaired – whether impairment substantial – verdict available that, on the limited evidence, alternative offence of manslaughter committed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1990 (NSW)
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Qaumi & Qaumi (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 134
R v Trotter (1993) 35 NSWLR 428
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Mr Ze Ren Le
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr G Tabuteau (Crown)
Ms S Hall (Defence)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Armstrong Felton (Defence)

File Number(s): 2016/00028690

reasons for verdict

Background to the Special Hearing

On 28 January 2016, the accused, Mr Ze Ren LE, was arrested and charged with the murder, on 28 March 2015, of Xun KE at Campsie in New South Wales, and with the robbery on the same day of Xun KE of certain property, whilst being armed with an offensive weapon.
On 30 April 2018, Fagan J found the accused unfit to be tried and he was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (the MHRT) and remanded in custody. [1]
1. Under s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (MHFP Act).
On 28 June 2018, the MHRT determined that the accused would not become fit to be tried within 12 months of the Court’s finding of unfitness. The MHRT advised the Court and the Director of Public Prosecutions (the DPP) of its determination. [2]
2. In accordance with s…

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 Le

Details

AGLC: R v Le [2019] NSWSC 483
Case: [2019] NSWSC 483
Decision Date: 30 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Le, the accused faced trial before a judge sitting alone in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, charged with two counts of murder and one count of robbery armed with an offensive weapon. The circumstances surrounding the alleged offences were such that the prosecution relied on a circumstantial case. The crux of the matter was whether the limited evidence presented could support a verdict of the offences as charged.

The court had to determine whether the accused, who suffered from schizoaffective disorder at the time of the offences, was suffering from an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition. Additionally, the court had to assess whether this condition impaired the accused’s capacity to understand the nature and quality of their actions, to judge whether those actions were right or wrong, or to control their self. The court also had to decide if this impairment was substantial enough to constitute a partial defence of substantial impairment under section 23A of the Crimes Act 1990 (NSW).

The court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively establish the offences as charged. However, it found that there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict that the accused committed the lesser offence of manslaughter, considering the substantial impairment defence. The accused was subsequently convicted of manslaughter, with the court taking into account the mitigating factors of the accused's mental condition at the time of the offence.

The court's final orders were that the accused be sentenced for the offence of manslaughter, reflecting the mitigating circumstances of the case.

Orders