Legal Research
Cases
R v Pfitzner

R v Pfitzner

Case [1996] SASC 5462 20 February 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COURT IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL DOYLE CJ(1), MATHESON(2) AND MILLHOUSE(3) JJ

CWDS
Criminal law - Manslaughter - appellant acquitted of murdering his adoptive mother but convicted of alternative charge - admissibility of statements made by appellant during interviews with the police whilst psychotic - evidence of a psychiatrist and of a neuro-psychologist that his statements were unreliable - whether statements should have been excluded as unfair - misdirection on alternative verdict. Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454; McDermott v The King
(1948) 76 CLR 501; R v Collie, Kranz and Lovegrove (1991) 56 SASR 302; R v Parker (1990) 19 NSWLR 177; Peter Edward Jones (1995) 78 A Crim R 504, applied. Sinclair v The King (1946) 73 CLR 316, distinguished. R v Smith
(1992) 58 SASR 491; A H Omarjee (1995) 79 A Crim R 355, considered.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 13 December 1995 #DATE 20:2:1996 #ADD 28:3:1996

Counsel for appellant: Mr W F Braithwaite

Solicitors for appellant: Bronwen Josephine Waldron

Counsel for respondent: Mr P J Rofe QC

Solicitors for respondent: DPP (SA)

ORDER
Appeal allowed.

JUDGE1 DOYLE CJ The appellant appeals against his conviction for manslaughter arising out of the death of Mrs Ailsa Pfitzner. Mrs Pfitzner was a 73 year old widow living alone. She was discovered dead in her house at Nailsworth at about 5.30 pm on 16 September 1994. She had suffered 9 stab wounds to the head and 10 to her back. Her back was broken.

2. There was some conflicting evidence as to the time of death. One expert put the time of death as occurring some time in the afternoon of the previous day, that is, 15 September. A defence expert put the time of death as being in the early hours of 16 September. There was other evidence which could support an inference that the death had occurred in the earlier period, including the clothing of the victim and the lack of any signs of an evening meal.

3. On 17 September the police arrested Mrs Pfitzner's adopted child, the appellant; he was charged with murdering her on 15 September. On 13 October he was admitted to James Nash House, an institution for psychiatric care. During his time at the Adelaide Remand Centre and James Nash House, the appellant attended a number of interviews with the police and was seen by psychiatric experts.

4. The appellant stood trial for murder and was convicted by a jury on the alternative count of manslaughter. The appellant was sentenced soon afterwards; a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment was imposed, and a non-parole period was fixed at 10 years.

5. The appellant now appeals against his conviction and also against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. I will deal with these in turn.

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION
6. The appellant raises three grounds of appeal, all of which are related to the admission into evidence of the interviews which…

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 Pfitzner

Details

AGLC: R v Pfitzner [1996] SASC 5462
Case: [1996] SASC 5462
Decision Date: 20 February 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was against a conviction for manslaughter, the result of a stabbing death of the appellant's adoptive mother. The appellant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter. The appeal was on the basis that statements made by the appellant during interviews with police should not have been admitted, and that the jury was not properly directed on the elements of manslaughter. The Full Court allowed the appeal against conviction, set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial. The Court held that the evidence of the interviews should not have been admitted because of the appellant's mental condition at the time of the interviews, but that it was not unfair to admit it. The Court also held that the jury should have been directed that the act must be dangerous, carrying with it an appreciable risk of serious injury. The Full Court was divided on whether the direction on manslaughter was erroneous, but inclined to think that the omission was not so "radical or fundamental" as to cause a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Orders