R v May - [2016] NSWSC 820

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v May [2016] NSWSC 820
Hearing dates: 6, 7, 8, 10, 15 June 2016
Date of orders: 20 June 2016
Decision date: 20 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Accused found guilty of the murder of Judith Townsend

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – whether accused guilty or not guilty – self-induced intoxication - whether mental element proved beyond reasonable doubt
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Jamie Edward May
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T McCarthy (Crown)
Mr I Todd (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Catherine Hunter Solicitor (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/113483
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

On 6 June 2016 the accused, Jamie May, was arraigned before me on an indictment that charged him with an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) that:

On 11 April 2014, at Redfern in the State of New South Wales, did murder Judith Townsend.

The accused entered a plea of not guilty to that charge.
The accused had elected to be tried by a judge alone pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), and the Crown agreed to that course. Being satisfied that the accused received appropriate legal advice prior to making the election, and bearing in mind the Crown’s consent, I was obliged to make an order for the trial to proceed in that way: s 132(2).
The accused did not dispute much of the evidence adduced by the Crown, and a considerable portion of it was tendered to the Court in the form of written statements made by witnesses. Some witnesses were called to give oral evidence. A number of documentary exhibits were tendered, and the Court attended the scene of the alleged crime to view the area pursuant to s 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

The Crown Case

Overview of the Crown Case

The deceased, Mrs Judith Townsend, was the accused’s maternal aunt. She lived in a block of units in Redfern Street in Redfern.
The Crown alleges that the accused approached his aunt as she walked in the street near her home late on the evening of 11 April 2014. It is alleged that he assaulted her in front of a unit block in Morehead Street at Redfern by striking her numerous blows to the head and face with a brick, and that he did so with the intention of killing her or causing her grievous bodily harm.
Mrs Townsend died soon after from the injuries occasioned to her.

The Evidence Adduced by the Crown

Much of the evidence relied upon by the Crown was tendered to the Court as Exhibit B1 – 55, together with other documentary exhibits. There was additionally oral evidence. Whilst I have considered all of the evidence, what follows is an account of the more significant parts of that evidence.

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 May

Details

AGLC: R v May [2016] NSWSC 820
Case: [2016] NSWSC 820
Decision Date: 20 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Queen versus May, the accused stood trial for murder. The case was heard before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the accused had committed the crime of murder, and if so, whether the accused's self-induced intoxication should be taken into account when determining the requisite mental element for the offence. The court had to decide whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of murder.

The court considered whether self-induced intoxication could negate the mental element required for murder, specifically whether it could negate the intent to kill. The accused's counsel argued that the intoxication rendered the accused incapable of forming the necessary intent to commit murder. The prosecution, however, contended that self-induced intoxication did not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility. The court examined relevant legal principles and authorities to determine the extent to which self-induced intoxication could affect the mental element of the crime.

The court held that self-induced intoxication could not be used as a defence to murder, as it did not negate the intent to kill. The intoxication was considered in determining whether the accused had the requisite intent, but it did not absolve the accused of responsibility for the crime. The court found that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of murder. The accused was found guilty and sentenced accordingly.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was guilty of the offence of murder. The court ordered that the accused be remanded in custody pending sentencing. The sentencing hearing was scheduled to determine the appropriate penalty for the crime committed.

Orders