R v Navin - [2015] ACTSC 386

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Navin
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 386
Hearing Date(s):	3 December 2015
DecisionDate:	4 December 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	The evidence of Professor Greenberg’s opinion of the accused’s psychiatric state on 26 December 2013 is excluded.
Catchwords:	EVIDENCE – Judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence – opinion evidence – expert evidence – exclusion of prejudicial evidence in criminal proceedings – evidence excluded. CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – particular offences – offences against the person – murder – manslaughter – mental impairment – diminished responsibility.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 28 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 59, 65, 137
Cases Cited:	Quinlan v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 106
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Christopher David Navin (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms M Jones (Crown) Mr S Littlemore QC (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 187 of 2014

BURNS J:

The accused, Christopher Navin, was charged with the murder of Nicholas Sofer Schreiber on 26 December 2013. To this charge he entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment on 16 November 2015.

The Crown obtained opinions from two psychiatrists, Dr Allnutt and Professor Greenberg, concerning the extent to which the accused may have suffered from a mental impairment on 26 December 2013, and whether any such mental impairment was of a severity sufficient to found a defence of mental impairment under s 28 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). Dr Allnutt and Professor Greenberg are forensic psychiatrists who were not involved in the treatment of the accused. The Crown also called evidence from Dr Barker, a psychiatrist who has treated the accused in custody since his arrest in February 2014.

All three psychiatrists were of the opinion that the accused suffers from a mental impairment, being schizophrenia. The real issue for the jury in the trial was whether the accused was so affected by his underlying condition of schizophrenia on 26 December 2013 as to be entitled to the defence of mental impairment, or alternatively a defence of diminished responsibility.

The evidence of Dr Allnutt and Dr Barker was received without objection on the part of the accused. Dr Allnutt opined that the accused was psychotic on 26 December 2013 when he killed the deceased, and was entitled to be found not guilty by reason of mental impairment. Dr Barker gave evidence that the accused was psychotic when he saw him on 24 February 2014 at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, but was not asked to express an opinion concerning the mental state of the accused on 26 December 2013.

Mr Littlemore QC, who appeared for the accused, objected to the Crown leading evidence from Professor Greenberg of any opinion he may have formed concerning the mental state of the accused on 26 December 2013, and whether any such mental state was consistent with a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.…

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 Navin

Details

AGLC: R v Navin [2015] ACTSC 386
Case: [2015] ACTSC 386
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Navin, was charged with the murder of his partner, and the matter was heard in the Supreme Court. The defence sought to introduce expert opinion evidence concerning the defendant's psychiatric state at the time of the incident, aiming to establish diminished responsibility and potentially reduce the charge to manslaughter. The prosecution objected to the evidence on the grounds that it was prejudicial and not relevant to the issue of the defendant's intent at the time of the offence.

The central issue for the court was whether the evidence of the defendant's psychiatric state was admissible, particularly given the potential for it to be considered prejudicial rather than probative. The court considered whether the evidence would assist in determining the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offence, or whether it would unduly prejudice the jury against the defendant. The court also had to balance the need to ensure a fair trial against the risk of confusing or misleading the jury.

In determining the admissibility of the evidence, the court noted that the evidence of the defendant's psychiatric state was not directly relevant to proving the elements of the charge of murder or manslaughter. The court held that the evidence was likely to cause the jury to sympathise with the defendant rather than to objectively assess the evidence. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence under the judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence. The court found that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value.

The court ordered that the evidence of Professor Greenberg’s opinion of the accused’s psychiatric state on 26 December 2013 be excluded from the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The evidence of Professor Greenberg’s opinion of the accused’s psychiatric state on 26 December 2013 is excluded.

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.