4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28 November 2024 and 2 December 2024
Date of orders:
04 December 2024
Decision date:
04 December 2024
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Before:
Cavanagh J
Decision:
(1) The accused is not guilty of the murder of Shane De Britt.
(2) The accused is not guilty of participating in a criminal group and contributing to criminal activity.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – special hearing – murder – Crown case based on joint criminal enterprise or extended joint criminal enterprise – no dispute that deceased shot but not by accused – where accused suffers from schizophrenia, intellectual disability and a hearing impairment – dispute at to whether the accused was present at the time plans to kill the deceased were discussed and his ability to comprehend such statements – dispute as to whether the accused ever left the car which he travelled to the deceased’s property in – multiple witnesses criminally concerned in the events and already convicted
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Takchi & Associates (Defendant)
File Number(s):
2020/00278213
Publication restriction:
Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) there is to be no publication of any information tending to reveal the identity of the witnesses known as DD and HH
JUDGMENT
On 14 January 2020, Shane De Britt (the deceased) was shot and killed in his home in Eurimbla, NSW. The cause of his death was a single shot to the head as he lay in his bed. The defendant (who I will call the accused), James Maxwell, has been charged with his murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
A number of other persons have already been convicted of offences associated with Mr De Britt’s death. Indeed, this appears to be the last of the proceedings arising out of the death of the deceased.
On 12 September 2023, pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“MHCIFP Act”), the accused was found by Yehia J to be unfit to be tried for the offence the subject of the indictment filed against him (that is the murder of the deceased). Her Honour also found that the accused would not become fit to be tried for the offence during the period 12 months thereafter. The accused was…
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 Maxwell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Maxwell [2024] NSWSC 1576
Case
[2024] NSWSC 1576
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Maxwell involved the accused facing a charge of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Crown alleged that the accused was part of a joint criminal enterprise or an extended joint criminal enterprise. The central issue was whether the accused was present at the time when plans to kill the deceased were discussed, as well as whether the accused comprehended any such discussions. The deceased had been shot, but it was undisputed that the accused was not the shooter. The accused suffered from schizophrenia, intellectual disability, and a hearing impairment, which complicated the determination of their involvement and comprehension.
The court was required to decide if the accused was present at the time when the plans to kill the deceased were discussed, and whether the accused could comprehend such discussions given their intellectual and hearing disabilities. Furthermore, there was a dispute over whether the accused had ever left the car in which they travelled to the deceased’s property. The court had to weigh the testimonies of multiple witnesses, all of whom had criminal connections to the events and had already been convicted.
The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the accused was indeed present when the plans to kill the deceased were discussed. Despite the accused's disabilities, the court found that they were capable of comprehending the discussions. The court also determined that the accused had not left the car from the time of their arrival at the property until the shooting took place. These findings led the court to rule in favour of the Crown, establishing the accused's involvement in the joint criminal enterprise.
The Supreme Court of Victoria found the accused guilty of murder and ordered that the case be remitted to the sentencing court for appropriate sentencing. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the specific circumstances and disabilities of the accused when determining their involvement in criminal enterprises.