Legal Research
Cases
R v McGuckin

R v McGuckin

Case [2014] ACTSC 242 18 September 2014

Not Guilty by Reason of Mental Impairment

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	The Queen v Kristy Louise McGuckin
Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 242
Hearing Date(s):	30 July 2014
DecisionDate:	18 September 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of aggravated robbery alleged to have been committed on 27 July 2012. 2. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm alleged to have been committed on 20 December 2012. 3. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of recklessly causing damage to property, alleged to have been committed on 17 May 2013. 4. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm alleged to have been committed on 26 May 2013. 5. The parties be heard as to the offences transferred to this Court under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). 6. The parties be heard as to the disposition of these proceedings.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Aggravated robbery – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Recklessly causing damage to property – Not guilty by reason of mental impairment CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – General Liability and Capacity – Pleas of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Difficulties in diagnosis – Differing diagnoses
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 334, Div 13.3 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 33 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 190 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 28, 310, 403
Cases Cited:	Daniel M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 CI & Fin 200; 8 ER 718 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969] 1 QB 439 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 153 R v Butcher [1986] VR 43 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Donnally (1779) 1 Leach 193; 168 ER 199 R v Hutchinson (1784) 1 Leach 339; 168 ER 273 R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107 R v Metharam [1961] 3 All ER 200 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 R v Williams (1877) 14 Cox CC 59 Williams v R (1990) 50 A Crim R 213 R v Whitely (1991) 93 Cr App R 25 Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kristy Louise McGuckin (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Gul (Crown) Mr A Doig (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number(s):	SCC 204 of 2013

Refshauge J:

Kristy Louise McGuckin, the accused, has been charged with four offences alleged to have been committed between 27 July 2012 and 26 May 2013.

She appeared first in the Magistrates Court on 9 November 2012 and variously since then as proceedings…

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 McGuckin

Details

AGLC: R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242
Case: [2014] ACTSC 242
Decision Date: 18 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McGuckin involved the defendant, Kristy Louise McGuckin, who was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and recklessly causing damage to property. The court hearing was presided over by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The crux of the dispute was whether McGuckin could be held criminally liable for the offences, considering her plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

The primary legal issues before the court were the validity of McGuckin's defence of not guilty by reason of mental impairment and the difficulties surrounding the diagnosis of her mental condition. The court had to assess the evidence and expert opinions presented regarding McGuckin's mental state at the time of the alleged offences.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the differing diagnoses provided by various experts. It highlighted the complexity and challenges in diagnosing mental impairment, particularly when the evidence was not uniform. Ultimately, the court accepted that McGuckin was not criminally liable for the offences due to her mental impairment, and therefore found her not guilty of all charges. The court ordered that the parties be heard regarding the offences transferred under section 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) and the disposition of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of aggravated robbery alleged to have been committed on 27 July 2012.

2. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm alleged to have been committed on 20 December 2012.

3. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of recklessly causing damage to property, alleged to have been committed on 17 May 2013.

4. Kristy Louise McGuckin is, by reason of mental impairment, not guilty of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm alleged to have been committed on 26 May 2013.

5. The parties be heard as to the offences transferred to this Court under s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT).

6. The parties be heard as to the disposition of these proceedings.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242

Most Recent Citation

R v McGuckin (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 365

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v Matthews
[2022] ACTSC 105

…e entry of a special verdict. Such agreement need not be in writing. (3) If not, the trial proceeds in the usual way (as in for example, R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242). (4) If so, then the court must consider whether a verdict is appropriate. (5) The Crown must prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accu…
R v Chemhere
[2021] ACTSC 45

…e entry of a special verdict. Such agreement need not be in writing. (3) If not, the trial proceeds in the usual way (as in for example, R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242). (4) If so, then the court must consider whether a verdict is appropriate. (5) The Prosecution must prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, that th…
R v Griffiths
[2020] ACTSC 51

…e entry of a special verdict. Such agreement need not be in writing. (3) If not, the trial proceeds in the usual way (as in for example, R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242). (4) If so, then the court must consider whether a verdict is appropriate. (5) The Crown must prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accu…
Jeromie Walls v Kristy Louise McGuckin
[2017] ACTMC 10

…Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11 The Queen v Kristy Louise McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242 R v Kristy Louise McGuckin (No 3) [2015] ACTSC 5…
Beniamini v Craig
[2017] ACTSC 30

…R v LE (No 1) [2014] ACTSC 71 R v Massey (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 278 R v M (CA) (1996) 105 CCC (3d) 327 R v McAllister (1982) 30 SASR 493 R v McGuikin [2014] ACTSC 242 R v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111 R v Ngerengere [2015] ACTSC 224 R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; 134 A Crim R 174 R v Phillips [1962] VR 55 R v Popovski [2…
R v Aleer
[2016] ACTSC 75

…r [2014] ACTSC 374 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Fisher (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 100 R v Hueston (1995) 5 Tas R 210 R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107 R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242 R v Smith (2012) 269 FLR 233…
R v Kristy Louise McGuckin (No 3)
[2015] ACTSC 5 Para 1

…aggravated robbery, two offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an offence of recklessly causing damage to property. See R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242.…
R v McGuckin (No 2)
[2014] ACTSC 365 Para 1

…f aggravated robbery, two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one offence of recklessly causing damage to property. See R v McGuckin [2014] ACTSC 242. In my reasons I set out, in some detail, her history of mental illness and also referred in some detail to a large number of reports from psychiatri…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 12 of 12 shown

R v Williams
[2018] SASCFC 14 Para 1

…judge of the facts as to whether an object is thus an offensive weapon depending on the way it is used or the intention for which it is carried. See R v Williams (1877) 14 Cox CC 59 at 60-1.…
R v Hutchinson
[2014] ACTCA 29 Para 1

…ut can include other objects which may have other, non-offensive uses but which are used or intended to be used to inflict injury or do violence. See R v Hutchinson (1784) 1 Leach 339 at 343; 168 ER 273 at 274. It is a question for the judge of the facts as to whether an object is thus an offensive weapon depending on t…
The Queen v Kylie Louise Barker
[2014] ACTSC 153 Para 1

…I have addressed the application of this legislation in R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 153 at [71]-[91] and I rely on what I there said.…
R v DM
[2010] ACTSC 137 Para 1

…at I must take into account. These are fundamental rules designed to ensure that an accused person receives a fair trial according to law. See R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137; R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98. I set them out as follows.…
R v Mulcahy
[2010] ACTSC 98 Para 1

…hese are fundamental rules designed to ensure that an accused person receives a fair trial according to law. See R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137; R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98. I set them out as follows.…
Fleming v The Queen
[1998] HCA 68 Para 1

…ated by s 33 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (a similar provision to s 68C of the Supreme Court Act ), the High Court in Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 at 263; [28] stated that it is necessary for the judge to expose the reasoning process linking the principles of law with the findings of fact and ju…
He Kaw Teh v The Queen
[1985] HCA 43

…aghten’s Case (1843) 10 CI & Fin 200; 8 ER 718 Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969] 1 QB 439 He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523 R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 153 R v Butcher [1986] VR 43 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Donnally (1779) 1 Leach 193; 168 ER 199 R v Hutchinson (1784…
[1969] 1 QB 439
[1969] 1 QB 439 Para 1

…See, for the elements of assault, Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969] 1 QB 439 at 444.…
Attorney General v Parnther
8 ER 718 Para 1

…Thus, although she would not meet the M’Naghten test ( Daniel M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; 8 ER 718), she was a highly disturbed woman with years of problematic care for her mental condition. This has led to her illness driving her offending behaviours. He said he found himself agonising over th…
[1965] AC 960
[1965] AC 960 Para 1

…, that the property was taken in the presence of or from the care or protection of another, Lord Pearce said in the House of Lords in Smith v Desmond [1965] AC 960 at 997-8…
168 ER 199
168 ER 199 Para 1

…See R v Donnally (1779) 1 Leach 193 at 195; 168 ER 199 at 200; R v Butcher [1986] VR 43 at 46-8.…
168 ER 273
168 ER 273 Para 1

…e other, non-offensive uses but which are used or intended to be used to inflict injury or do violence. See R v Hutchinson (1784) 1 Leach 339 at 343; 168 ER 273 at 274. It is a question for the judge of the facts as to whether an object is thus an offensive weapon depending on the way it is used or the intent…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
24, 334 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
33 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
190 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
90B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
68 2 mentions (from Para 1)