R v Rey Quintana (No 6) - [2020] NSWSC 1732

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rey Quintana (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1732
Hearing dates: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10,11,12,13,16,19 and 20 November 2020
Date of orders: 3 December 2020
Decision date: 03 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
1. On the indictment for murder presented on 2 November 2020 I find the accused not guilty.
2. The accused is discharged.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – self-defence – death by single stab wound – whether accused believed it necessary to do what he did – whether reasonable response – role of mental illness in perception of circumstances – not guilty

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
R v Hutchinson & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2
R v Quintana (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 724

Texts Cited:
---

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Rey Quintana (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Daleo (Crown)
A Evers (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Alpha Law (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2018/67200
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 28 February 2018, Thomas Halatoa died from a single stab wound to his back. Rey Quintana inflicted that fatal wound. He has been charged with murder, an offence under s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
There is no doubt that the stabbing occurred in the context of the accused being bashed and robbed in his apartment by all or some of the three people attending his apartment that day: Thomas Halatoa, Nadine Tairi and a large powerfully built young man known to the accused, Tekawau Opai, known as, and referred to in this judgment as “TK”. After he had been robbed and badly bashed around the face and head, these three people ran out of the apartment shortly after 4:00pm, observed by a number of neighbours who lived close by.
The accused asked a neighbour to call the police as his phone had been stolen in the robbery. When the police arrived, the accused was confused as to what was happening and why the police arrested him. He was observed to have significant swelling and bruising to his face and head. His right eye in particular was swollen shut.
He did not know that in the intervening hour or so, Mr Halatoa had collapsed after running from the building with the others, and had been taken by taxi to Mt Druitt Hospital, the stab wound inflicted by the accused having punctured his lung. Mr Halatoa was pronounced dead at 5:15pm.
The Crown case is that the accused deliberately stabbed Mr Halatoa, intending to cause him grievous bodily harm, because he was angry at being robbed and bashed.
The defence case is that the accused did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Halatoa in striking out…

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 Rey Quintana (No 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Rey Quintana (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1732
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1732
Decision Date: 03 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rey Quintana (No 6) involved the defendant, Rey Quintana, who was charged with the murder of another individual. The matter was heard by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue in the case was whether Quintana's actions in fatally stabbing the victim could be justified under the principles of self-defence, particularly in light of his mental health status at the time of the incident. The court needed to determine whether Quintana genuinely believed it was necessary to act in self-defence and whether his response was reasonable under the circumstances.

The court examined the evidence and circumstances surrounding the stabbing, considering the single stab wound that resulted in the victim's death. A critical aspect of the case was the role Quintana's mental illness played in his perception of the events leading up to the stabbing. The court had to assess whether Quintana's mental condition affected his ability to form a genuine belief in the necessity of self-defence and whether his response was proportionate to the threat he perceived. Ultimately, the court found that Quintana's actions were not a reasonable response to the situation and that he did not genuinely believe it was necessary to do what he did, leading to a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness.

The Supreme Court concluded that while Quintana's mental illness was a significant factor in the case, it did not absolve him of criminal responsibility for the act of murder. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between genuine self-defence and actions taken in the heat of the moment or under the influence of mental illness. The final orders of the court included a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness, which meant Quintana would be subject to a mental health order rather than a prison sentence. This outcome reflects the court's recognition of the complexities involved in assessing self-defence claims in cases where mental health issues are present.

Orders