Legal Research
Cases
R v Rigney

R v Rigney

Case [2025] SASC 80 30 May 2025

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)

R v RIGNEY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SASC 80
Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice Bampton
30 May 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE
Accused charged with murder – accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental incompetence – investigation under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – Court determined to proceed first with trial of the objective elements – finding recorded that objective elements established beyond reasonable doubt – whether accused mentally incompetent to commit the offence.
Held: Presumption of mental competence not displaced.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, ss 269A, 269C, 269D, 269G; Mental Health Act 2009 (SA) s 56, referred to.
R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45; Christie v The Queen [2005] WASCA 55; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 41; Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642, considered.

R v RIGNEY
[2025] SASC 80
Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone
The residents of Goodman Avenue, Kilburn
Ms Rigney’s movements on 7 December 2018
Ms Rigney’s attendances at Cash Converters and Service SA
Ms Rigney’s attendances at the Luis premises
The attempts to raise Maria Luis and Chico Luis’ return
Ms Rigney stabbed Maria Luis
The arrest of Ms Rigney
Ms Rigney’s police interviews on 7 and 8 December 2018
DNA analysis
Ms Rigney’s personal circumstances and mental health history
Ms Rigney’s admissions for mental health issues prior to 7 December 2018
Ms Rigney’s mental health history following her arrest
Fitness to plead and mental competence
“A tiger by the tail”
The trial pursuant to s 269G of the CLCA
The test for mental competence
Intoxication excluded

Ms Rigney’s mental impairment
Dr Nambiar
Dr Nambiar’s report dated 26 March 2020
Dr Nambiar’s report dated 20 July 2020
Dr Nambiar’s report dated 8 February 2021
Dr Nambiar’s report dated 28 April 2021
Dr Nambiar’s report dated 26 July 2021
Dr Nambiar’s evidence
Cross-examination of Dr Nambiar

Dr Ferris
Dr Ferris’ reports dated 21 August and 20 September 2020
Dr Ferris’ report dated 23 March 2021
Dr Ferris’ report dated 30 April 2021
Dr Ferris’ report dated 26 July 2021
Dr Ferris’ evidence
Cross-examination of Dr Ferris

Dr Furst
Dr Furst’s report dated 2 May 2022
Dr Furst’s evidence
Cross-examination of Dr Furst

Prof Coyle
Prof Coyle’s report 28 July 2022
Prof Coyle’s consideration of Dr Nambiar’s reports
Prof Coyle’s consideration of Dr Ferris’ reports
Prof Coyle’s consideration of Dr Furst’s report
Dr Nambiar’s report dated 10 August 2022 responding to Prof Coyle’s report
Dr Ferris’ report dated 15 August 2022 responding to Prof Coyle’s report
Dr Furst’s report dated 22 August 2022 responding to Prof Coyle’s report
Prof Coyle’s evidence
Cross-examination of Prof Coyle
Re-examination of Prof Coyle

Prof Morris
Prof…

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 Rigney

Details

AGLC: R v Rigney [2025] SASC 80
Case: [2025] SASC 80
Decision Date: 30 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rigney involved the defendant, Ms Rigney, who was charged with the murder of Maria Luis. The dispute centered on whether Ms Rigney was mentally competent to commit the crime at the time of the stabbing. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The central legal issues were whether Ms Rigney knew the nature and quality of her act and whether she was capable of controlling her conduct. The court needed to determine whether Ms Rigney was mentally competent under the provisions of the relevant criminal code.

The court carefully considered the evidence presented, including the nature of the stabbing, Ms Rigney’s actions following the incident, and the psychiatric assessments provided. The judge concluded that while the evidence suggested significant mental distress, it did not sufficiently establish that Ms Rigney lacked the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of her actions or to control them. The court found that the prosecution had not met the burden of proving mental incompetency on the balance of probabilities. The judge also highlighted that certain actions taken by Ms Rigney, such as disposing of evidence, did not necessarily indicate a clear presence of mind or intent to distance herself from the crime.

As a result of the findings, the court determined that Ms Rigney was mentally competent to stand trial for the murder of Maria Luis. The judge ruled that the presumption of mental competence had not been displaced, and therefore, the trial would proceed in the usual manner. This decision was made pursuant to the relevant sections of the criminal code, specifically sections 269G B(3) and 269G B(3)(b). Consequently, the court ordered that the trial would continue as planned.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I indicate that I have not relied on the frenzied nature of the stabbing or the number of stab wounds, given that these matters do not point to either a psychotic or non‑psychotic motive for Ms Rigney’s conduct in the absence of evidence as to what precipitated the stabbing. It is also trite to point out that this Court has tried defendants charged with murder involving allegations of frenzied, non-psychotic conduct. Nor have I relied upon Ms Rigney allegedly burning clothing she was wearing at the time of the stabbing, depositing her backpack at the nearby property, and concealing a knife used in the stabbing, or the manner in which she departed Maria Luis’ home after the stabbing. Even were each of these matters proved, I am not satisfied they necessarily demonstrate that Ms Rigney had the presence of mind to distance herself from the stabbing as contended by the prosecution.Conclusion It has not been established on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the stabbing, Ms Rigney did not know that her conduct was wrong; that is, that she was completely incapable of reasoning about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong. It has also not been established that she was totally unable to control her conduct. Pursuant to s 269G B(3), I am not satisfied it has been established, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Rigney was, at the time of the stabbing, mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder. Pursuant to s 269G B(3)(b), I record a finding that the presumption of mental competence has not been displaced and order that the trial is to proceed in the normal way.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

R v Rigney [2025] SASC 80

Most Recent Citation

R v Khelwaty & Khelwaty No. DCCRM-02-520 [2002] SADC 63

Cases Citing This Decision

Bannah v The King; Zahinda v The King [2025] SASCA 89
Citation 1 (Para 19)

…in Assim was discussed by Bray CJ in R v Rigney. [7] Whilst expressing reservations about the decision, Bray CJ considered it should be followed. [7] (1975) 12 SASR 30.…
R v Votino [2025] SADC 5
Citation 2 (Para 6)

…The decision of McCullough J in R v Uxbridge Justices was cited with approval by Matheson J in Re McKinnon .[14] The effect of the decisions to which his Honour referred may be summarised as follows:- 1. A full guarantee should be forfeited if the accused has failed to appear before the court, unles…
Lindsay v The King; Rankine v The King; Woods v The King [2022] SASCA 138
Citation 3 (Para 3)

…easonably open to find that the witness is an accomplice.[50] [49] R v Turnbull (1985) 17 A Crim R 370; R v James (1983) 36 SASR 215. [50] R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 51; R v Webbe and Brown [1926] SASR 108 at 111.…
R v Warwick (No.26) [2018] NSWSC 1079
Citation 4 (Para 27)

…, [42]; R v Serrano (No 5) (2007) 16 VR 360, 365-6; Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 286 at [92]-[97]; (2012) 229 A Crim R 67 at [92] to [95]; R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72; R v Bonacci [2015] VSC 121 at [54]-[66].…
R v BADCOCK [2018] SASCFC 70
Citation 5 (Para 23)

…ther was said in R v Glastonbury (2012) 115 SASR 37 at [92] to have become a rule accorded "the rigidity of a rule of law” by Bray CJ in R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 36.…
Lewis v Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety of the Australian Capital Territory [2013] ACTSC 198
Citation 6

…P and Ireland J, 13 April 1994) R v Qi (1998) 102 A Crim R 172 R v Quinn; Ex parte Consolidated Food Corporation (1977) 138 CLR 1 R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72 R v Solomon (1992) 62 A Crim R 296 R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170 R v Trade Practices Tribunal; Ex parte Tasmanian Breweries P…
R v Bechara [2013] SADC 141
Citation 7 (Para 26)

…another accomplice ( R v Baskerville , ibid, per Lord Reading CJ at 664; R v Webbe and Brown [15]; R v Rigney [16]). [15] [1926] SASR 108 at 117 [16] (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 36…
R v Glastonbury [2012] SASCFC 141
Citation 8

…Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378; R v Turnbull (1985) 17 A Crim R 370; The King v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658; R v Webbe and Brown [1926] SASR 108; The Queen v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30, applied. Tan Seng Kiah (1999) 106 A Crim R 276; Vaise v Delaval (1785) 99 ER 944; R v Minarowska and Koziol (2004) 60 NSWLR 86; R v Bates…
R v Gee [2012] SASCFC 86
Citation 9 (Para 21)

…defendant’s absence. [57] R v Abrahams (1895) 21 VLR 343, 347; R v King (2004) 155 ACTR 55, [7]-[14]. [58] R v Jones (1998) 72 SASR 281; R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72.…
R v Gee [2011] SADC 127
Citation 10 (Para 33)

…hams (1895) 21 VLR 343, per Hood J at 349; see R v King (2004) ACTSC 82, at [7]-[14] [6] R v Abrahams, per Williams J at 347 [7] R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72; see R v McHardie & Danielson (1983) 2 NSWLR 733, per curiam at 745; R v Mokbel (2010) 249 FLR 169 per curiam at [34]-[42] 7. In R v Jones [8] , the accused wa…
R v Singh & Bachra (No 1) [2010] SADC 129
Citation 11 (Para 32)

…the joinder of more than one accused in the same information is to be found in the common law or in the established practice of the Court: R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 Bray CJ at 46; R v Hogan & Ors (1990) 159 LSJS 297 Mullighan J at 306; R v Smith, Turner & Anor (1994) 63 SASR 123 Perry J at 136; R v Bunting & Ors…
R v Jones [2006] SASC 189
Citation 12 (Para 16)

…licable to accomplices, this court applies the test formulated in Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378; see also The Queen v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 37. In so far as it is relevant for present purposes, it was held in Davies’ case at 400 that accomplices are “persons who are participes criminis…
R v Ayles [2006] SADC 67
Citation 13 (Para 6)

…g out of those events or to secure a lighter punishment or no punishment at all. ( R v Young , above; R v Cratchley (1913) 9 Cr App R 232; R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 35, 37, 53, 56)…
Flavel v Van Reesema [2005] SASC 418
Citation 14 (Para 36)

…ng, the court has a discretion as to whether it will proceed with the matter in his or her absence: R v Jones (No. 2) [1972] 2 All ER 731; R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72; R v Jones (1998) 72 SASR 281.…
R v Tracey (No 1) [2005] SASC 355
Citation 15

…rrell and Cotton (1990) 48 ACrimR 311; R v Middis NSWSC, Hunt J, 27 March 1991 (unreported); The Queen v Conlon & Anor (1982) 30 SASR 176, discussed. The Queen v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30; The Queen v Hogan & Ors (1990) 159 LSJS 297; R v Smith, Turner & Anor (1994) 63 SASR 123; R v Trotter & Ors (1992) 58 SASR 223; R v Cloth…
State of Tasmania v Bosworth [2005] TASSC 29
Citation 16 (Para 1)

…led to appear, through his escape from lawful custody, it might correctly be found to be a waiver of his right to be present at the trial. R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72 concerned an accused person who voluntarily absented himself from the trial when it was due to continue on the third day of the trial. Perry J follow…
R v King [2004] ACTSC 82
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…ole of the trial through illness ( R v Abrahams (1895) 21 VLR 343) or where the accused has absconded ( R v Hallocoglu (1992) 29 NSWLR 67, R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72). Although R v Jones (supra) considered, without resolving, the question of a court beginning a trial in the absence of an accused, in that case the…
R v Hawkins and Boatswain No. DCCRM-02-912 [2003] SADC 116
Citation 18 (Para 23)

…doing so is not conditional on evidence or allegations that the various defendants were acting in concert (see R v Assim (1966) 2 QB 249; R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 per Bray CJ at 46; R v Hogan and Ors (1990) 159 LSJS 297 per Mullighan J at 306-309).…
R v Southon [2003] SASC 205
Citation 19 (Para 36)

…no requirement to give a warning similar to an accomplice warning in those circumstances.[5] [5] See R v Kilbourne [1973] AC 729 at 740; R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 37 ;The Queen v James (1983) 36 SASR 215 at 217, 260; R v Collie (1991) 56 SASR 302 at 312; R v Carabott (2002) 83 SASR 293 at 296…
R v Carabott [2002] SASC 283
Citation 20 (Para 16)

…nce and therefore had a motive to invent a full story. Such evidence clearly calls for a cautionary direction in the charge to the jury.” [2] (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 37 [3] (1991) 56 SASR 302 at 312…
R v Khelwaty & Khelwaty No. DCCRM-02-520 [2002] SADC 63
Citation 21 (Para 13)

…he trial should proceed as a joint one. Plainly the fact that the new Information was to contain no joint charges was a relevant one. (See R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 and R v Hogan (1990) 159 LSJS 297). However the fact remained that on the prosecution case the two accused men together approached the complainants a…
R v Jones [1998] SASC 7021
Citation 22 (Para 9)

…Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 July 1992, unreported (at 16). It was earlier followed in South Australia (at first instance), in R v Rigney (1988) 48 SASR 72 at 77.”…
Webb v the Queen [1994] HCA 30
Citation 23

…South Australia itself views have varied. In Reg. v. Rigney Bray CJ, expressing a preference for Reg. v. Teitler ((149) (1959) VR 321.), said ((150) (1975) 12 SASR 30 at 40.):…
Dianne Jennifer Lawford and Christianos Jacobus Van De Wiel v R No. 4247 Judgment Nos. SCCRM 93/246 and SCCRM 92/87 Number of Pages 16 Criminal Law and Procedure General Principles (1993) 69 a Crim R 115 [1993] SASC 4247
Citation 24

…The learned trial judge's directions as to corroboration in the present case were given at a time when the opinion expressed by Bray CJ in R v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30 that the accomplice warning applied in the case of an accomplice co-accused was frequently followed in this State. In the event of a re-trial it woul…
E v Australian Red Cross Society [1991] FCA 603
Citation 25

…I note that this passage has been cited with approval by Matheson J in Re McKinnon (1986) 40 SASR 326 at 328 and Perry J in R v Rigney (No.2) (1988) 49 SASR 389 at 400.…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49
Citation 1 (Para 5)

…gh such a condition may be evidence of mental illness if it involves some abnormality and is prone to recur (see R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30).…
Ramsay v Watson [1961] HCA 65
Citation 2

…e v The Queen [2005] WASCA 55; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 41; Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642, considered.…
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1
Citation 3 (Para 4)

…tated and excludes from consideration whether the defendant could reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure as set out in R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182. (c) is totally unable to control the conduct. (2)If, on an investigation under this Division, a person is found to be mentally incompetent to commit an of…
R v Childs [2023] SASC 103
Citation 4 (Para 4)

…opinion is offered not without some reservations and I reserve the right to reconsider should new information come to light . (Emphasis added) [20] [2023] SASC 103 at [65].…
Pty Ltd v Sprowles 636 F Supp 1419
Citation 5

…9G; Mental Health Act 2009 (SA) s 56, referred to. R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45; Christie v The Queen [2005] WASCA 55; Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; HG v The Queen (1999) 197 CLR 41; Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642, considered.…

Legislation Cited

Mental Health Act 2009 (SA) 56
2 mentions (from Para 4)
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
1 mention (from Para 2)