Legal Research
Cases
R v Miller

R v Miller

Case [2022] NSWSC 802 3 June 2022

Mental Health Impairment

Self-Defence

Excessive Force

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Miller [2022] NSWSC 802
Hearing dates: 2 - 3 June 2022
Decision date: 03 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
Defences under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) and s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) left to the jury.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Directions to jury — Self-defence with excessive force — Mental health impairment
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION — Definition of “mental health impairment” — Exclusion — Onus of proof — Whether meaning of “mental health impairment” is question of fact for the jury

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Braysich v The Queen 243 CLR 434; [2011] HCA 14
Colosimo v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 293
Moweno Pty Ltd v Stratis Promotions Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 376
R v DB [2022] NSWCCA 87
R v Flame (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1826
R v MC (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1542
R v Pham [2021] NSWSC 196
R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064
SZTAL v Minister of Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 262 CLR 362; [2017] HCA 34

Texts Cited:
A Johnson, K Eagle and C Goodhand, Crime and mental health law in New South Wales: Supplement to the 3rd edition (2021, LexisNexis Butterworths)
New South Wales, Law Reform Commission, People with cognitive and mental health impairments in the criminal justice system: Criminal responsibility and consequences (May 2013)
New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 3 June 2020

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
Jordan Brodie Miller
Representation:
Counsel:
L Carr SC (Regina)
P Krisenthal (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Regina)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/182872
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

On 20 June 2020, the accused killed Emerald Jade Wardle. He did so by strangling her shortly after 1am.
Prior to that time there was no history of violence or even disharmony between the two. They appeared to be in a normal relationship. The only explanation for the conduct of the accused is that he was suffering from an episode of psychosis at the time. There is a significant issue as to the relationship between the accused’s drug taking and the development of that psychosis.
The accused was charged with the murder of Ms Wardle. As outlined by the Crown and the accused at the commencement of the trial, one of the principal issues (but not the only issue) is the defence raised by the accused under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (MHCIFP Act).
Prior to the death of Ms Wardle, the accused had been a regular user of drugs. He had taken LSD approximately 30 times and regularly smoked cannabis. Ms Wardle was not a…

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2022] NSWSC 802
Case: [2022] NSWSC 802
Decision Date: 03 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Miller was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Miller, was on trial for assault causing bodily harm. Miller claimed self-defence against the assault, however the prosecution alleged that Miller had used excessive force. Miller also pleaded not guilty on the basis of mental health impairment, arguing that at the time of the incident he was suffering from a mental health impairment which impaired his ability to control his actions. The court was required to determine whether Miller's use of force was justified as self-defence, and whether Miller was suffering from a mental health impairment at the time of the incident. In determining whether Miller's use of force was justified, the court considered the definition of "self-defence" under section 10 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The court found that Miller had used excessive force in his response to the alleged assault and therefore his defence of self-defence failed.

In relation to the mental health impairment defence, the court considered whether the definition of "mental health impairment" under section 4 of the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) was a question of fact for the jury or a question of law for the court to determine. The court found that the definition of "mental health impairment" was a question of law for the court to determine. The court found that Miller did not suffer from a mental health impairment at the time of the incident and therefore his defence of mental health impairment failed. The court found Miller guilty of assault causing bodily harm. Miller's appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.

Orders