Legal Research
Cases
R v Murray

R v Murray

Case [2024] NSWSC 503 3 May 2024

Criminal Liability

Mental Health Law

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Murray [2024] NSWSC 503
Hearing dates: 29 – 30 April 2024
Decision date: 03 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
Various rulings made about proposed directions

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – judge alone trial – murder – directions – rulings before formal arraignment to commence trial – defence of mental health impairment – s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – where accused said to have been suffering from a substance-induced psychotic disorder at the time of the relevant acts – expert evidence – where psychiatrists agreed that accused had a mental health impairment as defined
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – meaning of s 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – whether s 4(2)(d) operates to exclude an impairment arising from a temporary substance-induced disorder from the definition of a mental health impairment under the Act – objective intention of Parliament based on words of statute – example that features a negative attribute in 4(2)(d) not to play an excluding role
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – interpretation of exclusion from definition of mental health impairment in s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) – whether onus falls upon prosecution or accused – “caused solely” – whether further criterion for other cause should be read into section – nullification of carveout in 4(3) not confined to causes that are significant for clinical diagnostic purposes

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 4, 28, 31

Cases Cited:
Fang v R (2018) 97 NSWLR 876; [2018] NSWCCA 210
M’Naghten’s case [1843] EngR 875; (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200; (1843) 8 ER 718
Miller v R [2024] NSWCCA 51
R v EC [2022] NSWSC 1088
R v Fang (No 3) (2017) 264 A Crim R 554; [2017] NSWSC 28
R v Hotoran [2023] NSWSC 1249
R v Jawid [2022] NSWSC 788
R v Miller [2022] NSWSC 802
R v Patterson(No 6) [2024] NSWSC 458
R v Sheridan [2022] NSWSC 1669
R v Thompson (No 1) [2022] NSWSC 1044
Radford v R (1985) 42 SASR 266; (1985) 20 A Crim R 388
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27
Swan v The Queen (2020) 269 CLR 663; [2020] HCA 11

Texts Cited:
Anina Johnson, Dr Kerri Eagle and Corrie Goodhand, Crime and Mental Health Law in NSW: Supplement to the 3rd edition (2021, LexisNexis)
New South Wales, Law Reform Commission, People with cognitive and mental health impairments in the criminal justice system: Criminal responsibility and consequences, (May 2013)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Graeme Leslie Murray (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Kerr (Crown)
T Quilter (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/232712

JUDGMENT

Introduction

This judgment resolves competing submissions before arraignment in a criminal trial about the meaning of s 4…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Murray [2024] NSWSC 503
Case: [2024] NSWSC 503
Decision Date: 03 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Murray was heard in a court where the defendant, Murray, was on trial for murder. Murray raised a defence of mental health impairment under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Murray's alleged substance-induced psychotic disorder at the time of the offence qualified as a mental health impairment under the Act. The court also needed to interpret the relevant sections of the Act to determine if the defence could be applied in this case.

The court began by examining the statutory language of section 4(2)(d) and section 4(3) of the Act, which define mental health impairment and the exclusions from this definition. The court considered the objective intention of Parliament, focusing on the statutory language and the context in which it was used. The court concluded that the exclusions in the Act do not apply to impairments arising from temporary substance-induced disorders, as such exclusions are not intended to negate the broad definition of mental health impairment. The court further held that the onus of proof does not rest on the accused to show that the impairment was not caused solely by a substance, but rather it is for the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

The reasoning and outcome of the court's decision favoured Murray, as it held that his substance-induced disorder could qualify as a mental health impairment under the Act. The court found that the statutory language did not exclude temporary substance-induced disorders from the definition of mental health impairment. As a result, the court ruled that the defence of mental health impairment could be considered in Murray's trial for murder.

The final orders of the court will depend on the outcome of the trial. If Murray's defence is accepted, the court may consider a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental health impairment. The precise orders will be determined during the trial proceedings following the court's ruling on the admissibility of the defence.

Orders