R v Mapp

Case [2024] NSWSC 1267 10 October 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mapp [2024] NSWSC 1267
Hearing dates: 8 October 2024
Date of orders: 10 October 2024
Decision date: 10 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
The application for trial by judge alone is refused.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – trial proceedings – murder – application for trial by judge alone – partial defence of substantial impairment – self-defence – prejudicial material relevant to expert evidence – prejudice inherent in evidence of lay witnesses – application of community standards – whether in the interests of justice to make trial by judge order

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19, 23A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 131, 132, 132A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 65

Cases Cited:
Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86; (2012) 217 A Crim R 1
RvCamilleri [2020] NSWSC 951; (2020) 287 A Crim R 85
R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 552
R v Flame [2020] NSWSC 1013
R v GokhanEyuboglu [2019] NSWSC 181
R v Hadler [2018] NSWSC 1151
R v Homann [2018] NSWSC 198
R v Niguidula [2023] NSWSC 290
R v Quinn (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1244
R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75
R v Villalon [2013] NSWSC 1516
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16
Redman v R [2015] NSWCCA 110
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517; [2005] HCA 4

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
David Mapp (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Young (Crown)
S Talbert (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Australian Criminal & Family Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00222292
Publication restriction: Until conclusion of trial

JUDGMENT

On 28 July 2022, the accused, David Mapp, then aged 57 years, had an argument with his 82-year-old mother, Colleen Wilson, at her home on the Central Coast. She died during that argument. The cause of death was identified as blunt force head trauma with external neck compression.
It is the Crown case that the accused armed himself with a pot plant and struck the deceased to the back of her head, causing her to collapse onto the ground and, at around this time, he restricted the flow of blood to the deceased’s head by strangling her. There had been tensions in the relationship caused by the accused’s entrenched heroin addiction.
The accused was charged with his mother’s murder on 29 July 2022. On 16 April 2024, he was committed to stand trial in this Court. The trial management form issued pursuant to Practice Note SC CL 2 was filed on 3 June 2024 confirming that neither party sought a trial by judge alone. At the subsequent arraignment on 7 June 2024, Wilson J listed the matter for a jury trial and on 20 June 2024, the trial was allocated to Lonergan J.
By notice of motion…

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 Mapp

Details

AGLC: R v Mapp [2024] NSWSC 1267
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1267
Decision Date: 10 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mapp, the defendant was charged with the murder of his partner and her adult son. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant sought a trial by judge alone due to concerns about the impact of the evidence on a jury. The case raised complex legal issues regarding the availability of a partial defence of substantial impairment, the applicability of self-defence, and the prejudicial nature of certain evidence.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence in question was so prejudicial that it would render a jury trial unfair and if a trial by judge alone would be in the interests of justice. Specifically, the court had to consider the impact of expert evidence on the defendant's mental state, the potential prejudice arising from lay witness testimony, and the applicability of community standards in assessing prejudice. The court also had to balance the defendant's right to a fair trial with the need to ensure that the trial process did not cause undue hardship to witnesses.

The court held that the evidence in question, while potentially prejudicial, did not necessarily render a jury trial unfair. The judge found that the partial defence of substantial impairment, while not available as a complete defence to murder, could be considered by the jury in determining the defendant's culpability. The court also held that the prejudice inherent in the evidence was not so severe as to preclude a fair trial by jury. The judge concluded that making a trial by judge order would not be in the interests of justice, as it would deprive the defendant of the opportunity to have his case determined by a jury of his peers. The court found that the defendant's rights to a fair trial were not outweighed by the potential prejudice of the evidence.

The court dismissed the application for a trial by judge alone, ordering that the case proceed to trial before a judge and jury.

Orders