Legal Research
Cases
R v Papley

R v Papley

Case [2017] NSWSC 1068 18 August 2017

Criminal Liability

Mental Illness Defence

Schizophrenia

Circumstantial Evidence

Deliberate Act/Omission

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068
Hearing dates: 17 July – 14 August 2017
Decision date: 18 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Not guilty by reason of mental illness

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – alleged deceased was accused’s infant daughter – child not seen since 2000 or 2001 – no sign of life from extensive police searches – circumstantial case – lies evidencing consciousness of guilt – satisfied child is deceased – satisfied deliberate act/omission causing the child’s death
CRIMINAL LAW – defence of mental illness – history of serious mental illness – expert evidence unanimous that defence available – schizophrenia – accused untreated during period child disappeared – chronic persecutory delusions involving the child, accused’s mother and authorities – not guilty by reason of mental illness
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) s 15A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132, 132A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 89
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 38
Cases Cited: Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500
Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317; 241 A Crim R 321
McNaghten's Case (1843) Cl and F 200; 8 ER 718
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256; 199 A Crim R 199
Sodeman v The King [1936] HCA 75; 55 CLR 192
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; 86 CLR 358
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; 55 CLR 182
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 308
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Karen Papley
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr T Gartelmann SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Rice More & Gibson

File Number(s): 2016/82780

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Karen Papley ("the accused") was arraigned before me on Tuesday 18 July 2017 and entered a plea of not guilty to the following charge:

Between 25 December 2000 and 25 December 2001 at an unknown place in the State of New South Wales did murder Astra Papley

The alleged victim was the accused's daughter. She was aged between 16 and 28 months in the period averred in the indictment. Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prohibits the publication or broadcasting of anything that would identify her. Accordingly, the published version of this judgment will identify the accused, her daughter and other family members by pseudonyms.
This trial has been conducted without a jury. The accused applied for an order that she be tried by a judge alone. The Crown consented to the application and to leave being granted for it being brought out of time. I granted both leave and the application, and made a trial by judge order: ss 132 and 132A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).

Some legal propositions

Onus and standard of proof

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 Papley

Details

AGLC: R v Papley [2017] NSWSC 1068
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1068
Decision Date: 18 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was charged with the murder of his infant daughter, who had not been seen since 2000 or 2001. The case was tried by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant argued that his daughter was deceased and that he was not guilty of her murder. The appellant also raised a defence of mental illness, claiming that he was suffering from schizophrenia and was not criminally responsible for the alleged offence due to his mental condition.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the child was deceased and whether the appellant was guilty of murder. The court also had to consider the defence of mental illness raised by the appellant. The court had to examine the evidence and determine whether the appellant's mental illness was such that he was unable to understand the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong.

The court found that the child was deceased and that the appellant had deliberately caused her death. The court was satisfied that the appellant had a history of serious mental illness and that he was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the alleged offence. The court also accepted the unanimous expert evidence that the defence of mental illness was available to the appellant. The court found that the appellant was not guilty of murder by reason of mental illness. The court accepted that the appellant's chronic persecutory delusions involving his daughter, his mother and authorities, had led him to believe that he had to protect his daughter from harm, and that this belief had caused him to commit the offence.

The court ordered that the appellant be detained in a mental health facility until such time as he was no longer a danger to himself or others. The court also ordered that the appellant be subject to regular review by a mental health tribunal to determine whether he should continue to be detained.

Orders