R v Munze - [2020] VSC 272

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2019 0226

THE QUEEN
v
WERNER MUNZE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 May 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 May 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Munze
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 272

---

CRIMINAL LAW– Accused 84 years of age – Accused charged with murder – Whether accused unfit to stand trial – Question to be determined under the temporary measures of Part 11 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) by judge alone – Evidence of neuropsychologists, forensic psychologists and forensic psychiatrist as to acquired brain injury and dementia – Joint submission by prosecution and defence that accused is unfit – Accused is unfit to be tried – Accused not likely to become fit to be tried in the next 12 months - Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) ss 6, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Hevey	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Kounnas	McFarlane Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

The accused, Werner Munze, is charged with the murder of his wife, Ursula Munze.

On 2 March 2019 he was located on the floor of the matrimonial home lying next to the body of his deceased wife. Mrs Munze, then aged 74 years, had suffered significant blunt force trauma to the head. The accused, then aged 83 years, was dehydrated and had multiple lacerations to his abdomen and wrists, presumed to be self-inflicted. To both paramedics and police officers he appeared to be confused and non-responsive to questioning.

Since that time he has been subject to various neuropsychological testing and psychiatric assessment completed on behalf of both his solicitors and the prosecution. He has been diagnosed with significant cognitive impairment arising from multiple causes.

There is a ‘real and substantial question’[1] as to the fitness of the accused to stand trial.
[1]Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) (‘Act’), s 9(1).

Ordinarily, that would trigger an investigation under Part 2 of the Act and the empanelment of a jury to determine the issue. But, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the temporary measures in Part 11 of the Act mandate that the issue of the fitness of a person to be tried is to be determined by a judge alone.

On 11 May 2020 the investigation was conducted via the WebEx platform. The accused attended via video-link from Port Philip Prison. Legal representatives and expert witnesses appeared from various remote locations. At the conclusion of that hearing I reserved my decision.

For the reasons that follow, I find that the accused is not fit to stand trial.

The Crown Case

The deceased was last observed alive outside the house she shared with the accused in Neerim South during the early evening of 24 February 2019. She was taking rubbish bins 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 Munze

Details

AGLC: R v Munze [2020] VSC 272
Case: [2020] VSC 272
Decision Date: 18 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Munze involved an 84-year-old defendant who was charged with the crime of murder. The primary issue before the court was whether the accused was mentally fit to stand trial. This determination was to be made under the temporary measures of Part 11 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic), by the judge alone. The court was presented with evidence from neuropsychologists, forensic psychologists, and a forensic psychiatrist, all of whom concluded that the accused had suffered from an acquired brain injury and dementia. Both the prosecution and defence jointly submitted that the accused was unfit to stand trial.

The legal issue before the court was whether the accused, given his medical condition, was unfit to stand trial. The court was required to consider the evidence provided by the experts and make a determination based on the statutory criteria outlined in the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). The court also needed to consider whether the accused was likely to become fit to be tried within the next twelve months. Given the unanimous expert opinion and the joint submission by both parties, the court was tasked with making a definitive finding on the accused's fitness to stand trial.

The court found that the accused was indeed unfit to stand trial, based on the comprehensive evidence presented by the experts and the joint submission by both parties. The experts' unanimous opinion that the accused suffered from an acquired brain injury and dementia, coupled with the joint submission, provided a clear basis for the court's decision. Furthermore, the court determined that the accused was not likely to become fit to be tried within the next twelve months. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused was unfit to stand trial under the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic).

Orders