R v Paul John McDermott - [2003] ACTSC 1

R v Paul John McDermott [2003] ACTSC 1 (30 January 2003)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – attempted murder – plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – prosecution agreed to entering that verdict – whether the court should enter verdict of not guilty of attempted murder by reason of mental impairment – test to be applied – whether on the balance of probabilities, at the time of the alleged offence, the accused was, as a result of mental dysfunction or mental illness incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong – restatement of test in R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182 – whether court considers verdict appropriate – it did – verdict entered.
WORDS & PHRASES - wrong.

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200; 8 ER 718

R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182

R v Windle [1952] 2 QB 826

Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358

R v Balaban (1953) SASR 282

R v Jones NSWSC, Sperling J, (13 May 1996, unreported)

No. SCC 50 of 2002

Judge: Higgins J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 30 January 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 50 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN

against

PAUL JOHN MCDERMOTT

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins J
Date:  30 January 2003
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A verdict of not guilty of attempted murder by reason of mental impairment be entered.

The parties may be heard as to consequential orders.

The accused, Paul McDermott, is subject to an indictment dated 2 May 2002, charging two counts, first:

“… that on 23 February 2002 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [he] did attempt to murder Ryan David Scott.”

And, second:
“… that on 23 February 2002 at Canberra aforesaid [he] did intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm upon Ryan David Scott.”

On 16 October 2002 the accused was arraigned on the first count. No plea was sought on the second. To that first count the accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The prosecution agreed to the entry of such a verdict. I have to decide if such a course is appropriate.

The facts alleged were not disputed, either by the prosecution or the defence. Those facts were described by police as follows:

“Circumstances:
It is alleged that about 10.30pm on Saturday 23 February 2002 at 20 Moulder Court Charnwood ACT, the defendant now before the court Paul McDermott went to his sons (sic) bedroom which at the time was occupied by his 10 year old son and the victim an 11 year old friend.
It is alleged that whilst in the bedroom the defendant armed with a knife went to the victim who was laying in a sleeping bag. The defendant then stabbed the victim in the back of his neck causing a penetrating wound at the base of the skull.
The defendant has then struck the victim on the right…

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 Paul John McDermott

Details

AGLC: R v Paul John McDermott [2003] ACTSC 1
Case: [2003] ACTSC 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paul John McDermott, decided on 30 January 2003, involved the accused, Paul John McDermott, who was charged with attempting to murder Ryan David Scott. The prosecution agreed to the plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment, leaving it to the court to decide if such a verdict was appropriate. The court needed to determine whether, at the time of the alleged offence, McDermott was incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong due to mental dysfunction or mental illness.

The central legal issue was whether McDermott, at the time of the incident, was unable to understand that his actions were morally wrong due to his mental impairment. This required the court to apply the test outlined in section 320 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which allows for an acquittal on the grounds of mental impairment if it is established on the balance of probabilities that the accused was incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong. The court needed to consider the evidence of McDermott's mental state at the time of the offence, particularly his delusional beliefs and the impact of his mental illness on his capacity to reason about the wrongfulness of his actions.

Justice Higgins concluded that McDermott, due to his delusional beliefs and severe mental illness, was incapable of understanding the moral wrongness of his actions. The court found that McDermott's mental state prevented him from reasoning calmly about the wrongfulness of his actions, thus satisfying the criteria for a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The court entered a verdict of not guilty of attempted murder by reason of mental impairment, reflecting the appropriate consideration of McDermott's mental condition at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that a verdict of not guilty of attempted murder by reason of mental impairment be entered and invited the parties to present any arguments regarding consequential orders. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework and the established legal principles concerning mental impairment and criminal responsibility.

Orders