R v SE - [2009] NSWSC 785

CITATION: R v SE [2009] NSWSC 785
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 03/08/2009, 04/08/2009, 05/08/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J

DECISION: I find that the accused is not guilty by reason of mental illness. In accordance with s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 I order that SE, formerly referred to in this judgment as the accused, be detained at the Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre.
I direct that the Registrar of this Court notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the terms of this order (s 39(3) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990).

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - indictment charging murder and attempted murder - trial by judge alone - defence of mental illness - background evidence - psychiatric opinion - verdict in accordance with psychiatric evidence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v McNaughten [1843] 8 E. R. 718
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 at 184

PARTIES: Regina - Crown
SE - Accused

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/15378

COUNSEL: Mr PM Miller - Crown
Mr A Haesler SC/Mr M Polden - Accused

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
S O'Connor, Legal Aid Commission - Accused

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Wednesday 12 August 2009

2008/16863001 – REGINA v S E
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR:

Nature of Proceedings

Criminal Procedure Act

2 Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.

3 The charges arise from an attack by the accused on his parents on the morning of 25 March 2008. The accused was aged 16 years and 9 months at the time. The deceased JE was the accused’s father and LE, the victim of the wound with intent to murder charge, was the accused’s mother. The accused used a 35 cm kitchen knife to inflict the injuries.

4 There was no dispute about the facts. By consent statements, photographs and documents prepared and written by the accused were placed before me.

5 The basis for the accused’s plea of not guilty is mental illness under s 38 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) or as an alternative, substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Accordingly the real issue litigated has been the mental condition of the accused at the time of the attacks.

6 Because of the agreement as to the facts, the trial lasted only three days. The oral evidence comprised that of LE, police officers…

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 SE

Details

AGLC: R v SE [2009] NSWSC 785
Case: [2009] NSWSC 785
Decision Date: 12 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SE involves an indictment charging the defendant, SE, with murder and attempted murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of a State, presided over by a judge without a jury. The defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental illness.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether SE was guilty of the charged offences, and if not, whether there was a defence of mental illness that could be applied. The court had to evaluate the psychiatric evidence provided to determine SE's mental state at the time of the alleged offences. The court also had to consider the admissibility and weight of background evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the psychiatric evidence provided by experts who assessed SE's mental condition. The court found that SE was suffering from a significant mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences, which impaired their ability to understand the nature and quality of their acts or to know that what they were doing was wrong. Based on this evidence, the court ruled that SE was not guilty of the charged offences by reason of mental illness. The court also took into account the background evidence, but ultimately, the psychiatric evidence was determinative in arriving at the verdict.

The final orders of the court reflect the verdict reached. SE was found not guilty of murder and attempted murder due to mental illness. The court ordered SE to be detained in a psychiatric facility, subject to the conditions and requirements set by the relevant mental health legislation. The court's decision highlights the importance of psychiatric evidence in cases where the defence of mental illness is raised, and underscores the need for a careful and thorough evaluation of such evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders