R v Maloney

[2000] QCA 355

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Maloney [2000] QCA 355

PARTIES:

R
v
MALONEY, Darren Bradley
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 69 of 2000
SC No 18 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2000

JUDGES:

Pincus and Thomas JJA, Moynihan SJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court;
each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY – DEFENCE MATTERS – INSANITY – DIRECTION TO THE JURY

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION – GENERAL MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – summing up - whether trial judge should have given directions on consequences of respective verdicts open when a defence of insanity raised – where juror asked question regarding consequences of the respective verdicts – where evidence that appellant was dangerous – where jury directed that consequences of the respective verdicts an irrelevant consideration – matter of discretion for trial judge - difficulties in framing direction on consequences of special verdicts

Criminal Code (Qld), s 27, s 647
Mental Health Act 1974 (Qld), s 39
Mental Health Act 2000 (Qld), s 204
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure Act 1990 (NSW), s 37

Attorney-General for South Australia v Brown [1960] AC 432, considered
Brown v The Queen (1959) 33 ALJR 89, considered
Hilder (1997) 97 A Crim R 70, considered
Lucas v The Queen (1971) 120 CLR 171, applied

R v Lorimer [1966] NZLR 985, considered

COUNSEL:

S J Hamlyn-Harris for the appellant
L J Clare for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. PINCUS JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Thomas JA.  As his Honour points out, the statute presently governing the status of people who have been acquitted on account of unsoundness of mind has been replaced by another which has not yet been proclaimed.  The latter contains a provision (s 204 of the Mental Health Act 2000) which appears to reverse the burden of proof, with respect to the question whether releasing the patient would create a danger to the safety of others. Assuming the new provisions become law, they might possibly make it easier for people who have been acquitted on account of unsoundness of mind to be released into the community. Of course, there is always the possibility that further relevant changes in the law might occur during the period of confinement of the person so acquitted; or there might during that period be a stiffening or relaxation of the authorities' attitude toward applications for release.

1. Some jurors, concerned about the danger presented by a person who has committed a crime of violence and whose sanity is debatable, would no doubt be more inclined to acquit on account…