R v Morgan - [2023] NSWDC 253

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Morgan [2023] NSWDC 253
Hearing dates: 11 July 2023
Date of orders: 13 July 2023
Decision date: 13 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraphs 133 - 134

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – mental health – defendant determined to be unfit to be tried - special hearing – agreement as to appropriate verdicts – whether mental health impairment defence established on the probabilities - appropriate consequential orders

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 27, 33, 33B, 60, 117, 195
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 4, 28, 31, 32, 54, 56, 59

Cases Cited:
RvDevine (1982) 8 A Crim R 45
RvHatch [2006] NSWCCA 330
R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
RvShepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351
Vallancev The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
Mr Jacob Patrick Morgan (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D Robinson for the Crown
Mr I Todd for the defendant
Solicitors:
ODPP
Legal Aid for the defendant

File Number(s): 2021/00170378
2021/00247531
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR VERDICTS

Background

The defendant is charged on indictment of multiple offences, all allegedly committed on 11 June 2021 as follows:

Charge

Description

Offence provision

1

At Chatswood in the State of New South Wales did steal certain property, namely, one blue coloured Ralph Lauren cap and one dark-coloured “Ellesse” brand jacket, the property of Accent Lifestyle Pty Ltd trading as Glue Store

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 117

2

At Chatswood in the State of New South Wales, did threaten to use an offensive weapon with intent to prevent the lawful apprehension of himself

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33B(1)(a)

3

At Chatswood in the State of New South Wales, did threaten to use an offensive weapon with intent to prevent the lawful apprehension of himself

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33B(1)(a)

4

At Manly in the State of New South Wales, did wound Hugo Fraser Stegmann, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(a)

5

At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Adam Yuille with the intention of causing the said Adam Yuille to fear physical harm

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), S 13(1)

6

At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally damage the front door of 12/66 Warringah Rd, Narraweena, the property of Adam Yuille

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 195(1)(a)

7

At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did assault Paul Rutkowski, a police officer acting in the execution of his duty, and by the assault did occasion actual bodily harm

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 60(2)

8

At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did wound Max Moon with intent to murder the said Max Moon

Crimes Act

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 Morgan

Details

AGLC: R v Morgan [2023] NSWDC 253
Case: [2023] NSWDC 253
Decision Date: 13 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Morgan, the appellant was charged with a series of serious criminal offences, including murder. The case reached the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the primary issue was the appellant's fitness to be tried and the appropriate consequential orders in light of his mental health condition. The appellant had previously been determined to be unfit to be tried due to his mental health impairments, and the matter proceeded to a special hearing to determine the appropriate verdicts and orders.

The central legal issues before the court involved whether the defence of mental health impairment was established on the balance of probabilities, and if so, what the appropriate consequential orders should be. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the appellant's mental health, including expert psychiatric opinions, and assess whether the defence met the legal criteria required for such a determination. Furthermore, the court needed to decide on the appropriate verdicts in the absence of a trial, given the findings on the appellant's fitness to be tried.

The court's reasoning focused on the extensive evidence presented, including psychiatric assessments and expert testimonies, which demonstrated that the appellant suffered from severe mental health impairments that rendered him unfit to be tried. The court found that the defence of mental health impairment was established on the balance of probabilities, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not criminally responsible for the offences due to his mental state at the time. Given the findings, the court proceeded to order that the appellant be detained in a psychiatric facility under specific conditions outlined in the Mental Health Act, ensuring his treatment and care while addressing public safety concerns.

The final orders of the court, as outlined in paragraphs 133 and 134, directed that the appellant be detained in a secure psychiatric facility, with provisions for ongoing treatment and review of his mental health status. The court also made orders for the appellant's continued detention and periodic review, ensuring that his treatment aligns with both his health needs and the requirements of public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 133 - 134

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Morgan [2023] NSWDC 253
Hearing dates:	11 July 2023
Date of orders:	13 July 2023
Decision date:	13 July 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraphs 133 - 134
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – mental health – defendant determined to be unfit to be tried - special hearing – agreement as to appropriate verdicts – whether mental health impairment defence established on the probabilities - appropriate consequential orders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 27, 33, 33B, 60, 117, 195 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 4, 28, 31, 32, 54, 56, 59
Cases Cited:	RvDevine (1982) 8 A Crim R 45 RvHatch [2006] NSWCCA 330 R v Markuleski (2001) 52 NSWLR 82 RvShepherd [2003] NSWCCA 351 Vallancev The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) Mr Jacob Patrick Morgan (defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D Robinson for the Crown Mr I Todd for the defendant Solicitors: ODPP Legal Aid for the defendant
File Number(s):	2021/00170378 2021/00247531
Publication restriction:	Nil

Charge	Description	Offence provision
1	At Chatswood in the State of New South Wales did steal certain property, namely, one blue coloured Ralph Lauren cap and one dark-coloured “Ellesse” brand jacket, the property of Accent Lifestyle Pty Ltd trading as Glue Store	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 117
2	At Chatswood in the State of New South Wales, did threaten to use an offensive weapon with intent to prevent the lawful apprehension of himself	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33B(1)(a)
3	At Chatswood in the State of New South Wales, did threaten to use an offensive weapon with intent to prevent the lawful apprehension of himself	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33B(1)(a)
4	At Manly in the State of New South Wales, did wound Hugo Fraser Stegmann, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 33(1)(a)
5	At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did intimidate Adam Yuille with the intention of causing the said Adam Yuille to fear physical harm	Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), S 13(1)
6	At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did intentionally damage the front door of 12/66 Warringah Rd, Narraweena, the property of Adam Yuille	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 195(1)(a)
7	At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did assault Paul Rutkowski, a police officer acting in the execution of his duty, and by the assault did occasion actual bodily harm	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 60(2)
8	At Narraweena in the State of New South Wales, did wound Max Moon with intent to murder the said Max Moon	Crimes Act