R v MM - [2024] NSWSC 1066

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MM [2024] NSWSC 1066
Hearing dates: 23 August 2024
Date of orders: 23 August 2024
Decision date: 23 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Special verdict of act proven but the accused is not criminally responsible. Orders made for the detention of the young person until release by due process of law and for referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment – special verdict where defence and prosecution agree that defence is available – unanimous medical opinion that a severe form of manic psychosis was present at the time of the offence – accused did not know that the act was wrong – temporary effect of alcohol intoxication negatived – special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible returned

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28(1), 31

Cases Cited:
R v AD [2024] NSWSC 444
R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007
R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51
R v Sione; R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 378
R v Sione; R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 846
R v TB [2024] NSWSC 447

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
MM (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
B Robinson (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)(Crown)
Veronica Love Lawyer (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/223940

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded not guilty to a charge that on 6 August 2021 at Doonside she murdered Jason Galleghan.
This is a hearing pursuant to s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The accused is legally represented. The prosecution and the defence agree that the proposed evidence in the proceedings establishes a defence of mental health impairment. Despite the parties agreeing, it remains a matter for the court to consider the evidence and decide whether the defence is established.
The accused is aged 18 but she was aged 15 at the time of the events in question. Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prohibits publication or broadcast of her name in a way that connects her with these proceedings. Jason Galleghan was aged 16 at the time but his mother has consented to him being identified and being referred to by his first name.

The offence

There are agreed facts as to the murder from which I have drawn the following summary.
Kayla Dawson was aged 19 and lived in a home in Perigee Close, Doonside with her partner. She was a friend of Jason. She came to think, wrongly, that he had stolen her AirPods. She told people about this and it was decided to lure Jason to the house to assault him as retribution for the theft. She would later admit to police that she had set Jason up by telling him to come to…

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 MM

Details

AGLC: R v MM [2024] NSWSC 1066
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1066
Decision Date: 23 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MM involved the defendant, MM, who was charged with murder. The matter came before the court with an agreement between the defence and the prosecution that the defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment was available. The court was tasked with determining whether MM was criminally responsible for the act proven at the time of the offence. The parties agreed that MM had a severe form of manic psychosis at the time of the offence and that he did not know that the act was wrong. The court had to decide whether temporary alcohol intoxication could negate the defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment.

The legal issues before the court were whether MM's severe form of manic psychosis negated his criminal responsibility and whether temporary alcohol intoxication could negate the defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment. The court considered the evidence of medical experts who provided a unanimous opinion that MM had a severe form of manic psychosis at the time of the offence. The court also considered the effect of temporary alcohol intoxication on MM's mental state and whether it could negate the defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment. The court held that the defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment was available to MM and that temporary alcohol intoxication did not negate the defence.

The court held that MM was not criminally responsible for the act proven at the time of the offence due to his severe form of manic psychosis. The court found that MM did not know that the act was wrong and that his mental impairment and cognitive impairment negated his criminal responsibility. The court returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible. The court considered the evidence of medical experts who provided a unanimous opinion that MM had a severe form of manic psychosis at the time of the offence and that he did not know that the act was wrong. The court held that temporary alcohol intoxication did not negate the defence of mental impairment and cognitive impairment. The court found that MM was not criminally responsible for the act proven at the time of the offence due to his severe form of manic psychosis.

Orders