R v Munoz - [2014] NSWSC 1408

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Munoz [2014] NSWSC 1408
Hearing dates: 13/10/2014
Decision date: 13 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Verdict:
Not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness.
Orders:
Pursuant to s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900:
(1) Order that Daniel Munoz be detained at the Psychiatric Ward, Long Bay Prison Hospital, or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law.
(2) Direct the Registrar of the Court to notify the Minister for Health of this judgment and order.
(3) Direct the Registrar of the Court to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of this judgment and order and to provide to that Tribunal the following documentation:
(a) A copy of this judgment and orders;
(b) A transcript of these proceedings;
(c) A copy of each of the exhibits tendered at the trial.
Pursuant to s 169 of the Criminal ProcedureAct 1986:
(1)Order, in the interests of justice, that the offence set out in a Certificate dated 23 June 2014 pursuant to s 166(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, be remitted to the Local Court at Penrith for mention on 12 December 2014.
(2)I excuse Mr Munoz from attendance at Penrith Local Court on 12 December 2014 provided that he is legally represented.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder; one count - trial by judge alone - Criminal Procedure Act 1986; s 132, s 133 - CRIMINAL LAW - murder; one count - defence of mental illness - Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900; s 38 - whether accused mentally ill at time of offences under M'Naughten Rules - facts agreed by Crown and Accused - expert opinion evidence - psychiatric diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia - whether accused knew what he was doing was wrong - defence established - no point of general principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; (1998) 197 CLR 250
Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77; (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v M'Naughten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 55; (1952) 86 CLR 358;
Regina v Matheis (1958) 58 SR (NSW) 321
R v Matusevich & Thompson [1976] VR 470
R v Huy Pham [2007] NSWSC 1313
R v Coles [2008] NSWSC 682
R v Winningham (unreported, NSWCCA, 10 May 1995)
Texts Cited: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders - 5th Edition
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Daniel Munoz (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
B Rigg SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Christopher Tosevic (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/315783

Judgment

By an indictment presented on 29 July 2014, Daniel Munoz is accused of murdering…

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 Munoz

Details

AGLC: R v Munoz [2014] NSWSC 1408
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1408
Decision Date: 13 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the prosecution of Munoz, who was charged with one count of murder. The case was heard by the court in a trial by judge alone, pursuant to sections 132 and 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The central issue before the court was whether Munoz was mentally ill at the time of the offence, which would provide a defence under section 38 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1900. The court had to determine whether Munoz knew the nature and quality of his act, and whether he knew that what he was doing was wrong, according to the M'Naughten Rules.

The court considered expert opinion evidence provided by psychiatrists, which unanimously diagnosed Munoz with paranoid schizophrenia. The court accepted the facts agreed upon by both the Crown and the defence, and found that Munoz was indeed mentally ill at the time of the offence. The court found that Munoz did not have the capacity to know the nature and quality of his act, nor did he know that what he was doing was wrong. Therefore, the court established that the defence of mental illness was applicable in this case.

The court concluded that there was no point of general principle to be determined in this case. Accordingly, the court found Munoz not guilty of murder due to mental illness. The court ordered that Munoz be detained in a secure mental health facility until such time as he is no longer considered a risk to the community.

Orders