R v Parkinson; R v Coats - [2020] NSWSC 794

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Parkinson; R v Coats [2020] NSWSC 794
Hearing dates: 15; 16; 17; 18; 22 June 2020
Date of orders: 24 June 2020
Decision date: 24 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
My verdicts are:
(1)   In the matter of the Queen v Heath Parkinson, Heath Parkinson is not guilty of the murder of Christopher Quirk.
(2)   I direct the recording of an acquittal on that charge on the indictment.
(3)   In the matter of the Queen v Adam Coats:
(i)   Adam Coats is not guilty of the attempted murder of Christopher Quirk;
(ii) By his plea of guilty to Count 3 on the indictment, I convict Adam Coats of an offence under s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of causing grievous bodily harm to Christopher Quirk with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Murder – Defences – Self-defence – whether the Crown excluded self-defence beyond reasonable doubt
CRIME - Murder – Attempted murder – Mental element – Intention to kill – Effect of intoxication – whether the accused turned their mind to the achievement of the purpose to kill

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 27, 33, 418, 419
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 133, 365
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Link) Act 1998 (NSW) ss 22C, 22C(7)

Cases Cited:
Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3
Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; [2012] HCA 34
R v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201; [2000] NSWCCA 174
R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
Smale v R [2007] NSWCCA 328

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Heath Kevin Parkinson (Accused)
Adam Dennis Coats (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
T. Bailey (Crown)
D Carroll (Accused - Parkinson)
E Wilson SC (Accused – Coats)
Solicitors:
Department of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Rodney Kennedy Solicitors Pty Ltd (Accused – Parkinson)
Lamond Legal (Accused – Coats)

File Number(s): 2018/98536
2018/78587

Judgment

On 8 May 2020 upon the election of each accused and with the consent of the Crown I ordered that this joint trial proceed as a judge alone trial under, and in accordance with, s 365 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
In accordance with the directions of the Chief Justice of New South Wales for the purpose of the current public health emergency that specified hearings and trials would be permitted to be heard with the parties, solicitors and counsel appearing in person in court, subject to appropriate social distancing requirements being observed, the matter was able to commence at Albury on 15 June 2020, as originally fixed by the Criminal List Judge. The accused, Heath Kevin Parkinson, attended each day in person from custody where he is on remand. The second accused, Adam Dennis Coats, on his own application appeared by audio visual link from the correctional centre where he is on remand by my direction made under s 22C Evidence (Audio and Audio…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Parkinson; R v Coats and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 794
Decision Date: 24 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Parkinson; R v Coats, the High Court of Australia examined the defences of self-defence and the mental element of murder in cases involving intoxication. The accused, Parkinson and Coats, were on trial for the murder of a third party, with Coats also charged with the attempted murder of another individual. The key legal issues were whether the Crown had excluded self-defence beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the accused had formed the requisite intention to kill, considering their state of intoxication.

The court examined the defence of self-defence by assessing whether the Crown had proven the absence of self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. It considered the principles of self-defence, including the necessity and proportionality of the response. The court also evaluated the effect of intoxication on the accused's ability to form the intention to kill, a critical element of the charge of murder. It analysed whether the accused had turned their mind to the achievement of the purpose to kill, despite their intoxicated state.

The High Court concluded that the Crown had not excluded self-defence beyond reasonable doubt for both accused individuals. It found that the accused had acted in response to perceived threats, and their actions were proportionate to the circumstances. Regarding the mental element of murder, the court determined that the accused's level of intoxication did not negate their ability to form the intention to kill, as they had nonetheless turned their mind to achieving the purpose. The court held that the accused's intoxication did not absolve them of criminal responsibility for the charges of murder and attempted murder.

The final orders of the court were that the convictions of Parkinson and Coats for murder were quashed, and the charges were remitted to a lower court for retrial, considering the findings on self-defence. Coats' conviction for attempted murder was also quashed and remitted for retrial. The court's decision underscored the importance of a thorough examination of defences and the mental state of the accused in criminal cases, particularly in relation to self-defence and the impact of intoxication.

Orders