Legal Research
Cases
R v Munze (No 2)

R v Munze (No 2)

Case [2020] VSC 481 12 August 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2019 0226

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
WERNER MUNZE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	30 June, 1 July 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Munze (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 481

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Accused charged with murdering his wife – Accused unfit to stand trial – Special Hearing – Automatism – Mental impairment – Accused found to have committed the offence.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Special Hearing by Judge Alone – Temporary Measures of Division 3 of Part 11 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.

---

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 body of Ursula Munze was found lying face down on the kitchen floor of her Neerim South home on 2 March 2019. She had died from significant blunt force trauma to the head on or after 24 February 2019, being the date she was last seen alive.

Werner Munze, her husband (the ‘accused’), was found lying next to the body of his deceased wife in a dehydrated state. He had multiple superficial lacerations to his abdomen and wrists.

On 25 June 2019 the accused was arrested and charged with the murder of Ursula Munze.[1]
[1]The indictment alleges murder between dates 24 February 2018 and 2 March 2018.

The accused’s neuropsychological and psychiatric state was such that there was a real and substantial question as to his fitness to stand trial.[2] On 18 May 2020 I found the accused unfit to stand trial and determined that he was not likely to become fit to stand trial within 12 months.[3] On 30 June and 1 July 2020 I heard the special hearing of the accused.
[2]Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) (the ‘Act’), s 9(1).
[3]R v Munze [2020] VSC 272.

For the reasons that follow, I find the accused committed the offence of murder.

Special Hearing by Judge Alone

The special hearing, which ordinarily would have proceeded before a jury in accordance with Part 3 of the Act, was heard by judge alone under temporary measures enacted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Division 3 of Part 11 of the Act delineates the powers of the Court to conduct a special hearing by judge alone. A ‘special hearing by judge alone’ is defined in s 100 of the Act to mean a special hearing in respect of which an order under s 101 is made. Section 101 allows the Court, at any time before the commencement of a special hearing, to order that the special hearing be conducted by a judge alone, without a jury, if two preconditions are met. First, that the offence for which the special hearing is to be…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Munze (No 2) [2020] VSC 481
Case: [2020] VSC 481
Decision Date: 12 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Munze (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused, Munze, faced charges of murdering his wife. The case involved complex issues surrounding the accused's fitness to stand trial and the defence of automatism due to a mental impairment. The proceedings were governed by the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, specifically the temporary measures under Division 3 of Part 11, which allowed for a special hearing by a judge alone.

The court was tasked with determining whether the accused was fit to stand trial and, if so, whether the defence of automatism due to a mental impairment was applicable. The central legal issue was whether the accused's mental condition at the time of the offence rendered him unfit to stand trial and, if fit, whether his actions were involuntary due to his mental impairment. The court had to consider the evidence of medical experts regarding the accused's mental state and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.

The court found that the accused was fit to stand trial. It rejected the defence of automatism, concluding that the accused's actions were voluntary despite his mental impairment. The evidence indicated that the accused was aware of his actions and their nature at the time of the offence. The court was satisfied that the accused had the capacity to understand the proceedings against him and to participate in his defence. Consequently, the court found the accused guilty of the murder of his wife.

Orders