R v Majdalawi - [2000] NSWCCA 240

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v MAJDALAWI [2000] NSWCCA 240

FILE NUMBER(S):
60324/98

HEARING DATE(S): 13/06/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/06/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Hoss Majdalawi

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ Newman J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70064/96

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bell AJ

COUNSEL:
D N Stewart (Appellant)
C K Maxwell WC (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Dodaro Lawyers (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW
murder
defences
diminished responsibility
"substantial impairment"
Crimes Act 1900, s23A

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

- 13 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60324/98
SPIGELMAN CJ
NEWMAN J
ADAMS J
Tuesday 13 June 2000

REGINA v Hoss MAJDALAWI
JUDGMENT

SPIGELMAN CJ: The Appellant was found guilty of murder. His defence at trial and in this Court was that of diminished responsibility pursuant to s23A of the Crimes Act 1900. The only ground of appeal is that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable having regard to the medical evidence which, it is submitted, clearly establishes the defence of diminished responsibility.
On 21 March 1996 the Appellant shot his wife outside the Family Court in Parramatta a number of times, with the last shot at close range to her head.
The submissions of both the Appellant and the Crown accepted that three conditions must be made out, namely, the jury must be satisfied that at the time of the killing the Appellant was:
(i) suffering from an abnormality of mind;
(ii) that the abnormality arose from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or from some inherent cause or was induced by disease or injury;
(iii) that the abnormality substantially impaired the accused's mental responsibility for the act.
The Crown accepted that conditions (i) and (ii) had been made out. Issue is joined on condition (iii) namely whether the abnormality of mind substantially impaired the Appellant’s mental responsibility for the killing.
With respect to this third element the issue for this Court is whether it was open to the jury to reject the defence of diminished responsibility on the evidence before it.
Two psychiatrists were called in the defence case, both with varying qualifications to which I will presently refer, who gave evidence in support of the defence.
The Appellant accepted the statement of principle in this respect of Badgery-Parker J in R v Tumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 149 at 160 as follows:
"Because the existence of the first and the third elements are matters for determination by the jury being matters of degree not capable of scientific measurement, and the jury is entitled to approach them in a broad commonsense way and not necessarily in accordance with the medical evidence, on neither issue is the jury, bound to accept the medical evidence if there is other material before it which in the judgment of the jury, conflicts with it and outweighs it."
The Appellant, accordingly, had to submit, and did submit, that there was no other material before the…

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 Majdalawi

Details

AGLC: R v Majdalawi [2000] NSWCCA 240
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 240
Decision Date: 13 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of R v Majdalawi involved the defendant, Majdalawi, who was charged with the murder of an individual. The defendant raised a plea of diminished responsibility under the Crimes Act 1900, section 23A, contending that his capacity to control his actions was substantially impaired at the time of the offence due to a recognised mental condition. The primary issue for the court was to determine whether the defendant's mental state met the threshold of "substantial impairment" as defined by the legislation, which would reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding Majdalawi's mental health, including expert testimonies and medical reports, to ascertain if his impairment was sufficient to affect his control over his actions. The court considered the statutory definition of "substantial impairment" and whether Majdalawi's condition met the criteria of being an "abnormality of mental processes." The court also assessed whether this impairment substantially impaired his ability to form rational judgement or to understand the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong.

Upon thorough analysis, the court found that Majdalawi's evidence and the expert testimonies did not sufficiently demonstrate that his mental condition resulted in a substantial impairment of his ability to control his actions. The court held that the defendant's condition did not meet the statutory requirements for diminished responsibility. Consequently, the plea of diminished responsibility was rejected, and the defendant was convicted of murder. The court delivered its final orders accordingly, confirming the conviction for murder and proceeding with sentencing.

Orders