R v Sheridan - [2022] NSWSC 1669

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sheridan [2022] NSWSC 1669
Hearing dates: 08 September 2022
Date of orders: 09 December 2022
Decision date: 09 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
Crown bears the onus to prove facts relevant to s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act (NSW) 2020 on the balance of probabilities.

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings — Defence of mental health impairment — Exception to defence if impairment caused solely by temporary effect of ingesting substance or substance use disorder — Onus and burden of proof — Onus on Crown to prove exception to defence on balance of probabilities

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 ss 4, 28

Cases Cited:
Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1990) 170 CLR 249; [1990] HCA 41
Dowling v Bowie (1952) 86 CLR 136; [1952] HCA 63
R v Fang (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 28; 264 A Crim R 554
R v Miller [2022] NSWSC 802

Texts Cited:
Not applicable

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: The Crown
Chadley Sheridan (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Munro (Crown)
B Robinson (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/74828
Publication restriction: The name of the child victim must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects them with these proceedings: s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

Judgment

On the fourth day of the trial of the Accused, Chadley Sheridan, upon an Indictment charging him with the murder on or about 15 March 2021 of Hamish Dunn (“the Deceased”), I heard argument about the proper directions to be given to the jury with respect to the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (“the Act”).
At the conclusion of the argument, I indicated the directions which I would give and informed the parties that I would deliver reasons in due course.
These are my reasons for that ruling.

Factual Background

It is not in issue in the trial that between 10pm and 11pm on 15 March 2021, the Accused killed the Deceased in his bedroom by strangling him.
It is also not in issue that at the time that occurred, the Accused was suffering from a drug-induced psychosis which had the effect that such was his impairment that he did not know that his act was wrong.
Equally, it does not seem to be in dispute that the drug-induced psychosis was at least partly the result of self-induced intoxication.
As I understand the evidence that is to be adduced from the experts, Dr Kerrie Eagle, a Consultant Psychiatrist instructed by the Crown, will express her opinion that the impairment of the Accused was caused solely by the temporary effect of his drug taking.
Dr Olav Nielssen, a Consultant Psychiatrist qualified to express an expert opinion on behalf of the Accused, will give evidence that the impairment of the…

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 Sheridan

Details

AGLC: R v Sheridan [2022] NSWSC 1669
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1669
Decision Date: 09 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sheridan involved the defendant, Sheridan, who was facing criminal charges and sought to rely on a defence of mental health impairment. The dispute centred around the applicability of an exception to this defence, which would apply if the defendant's impairment was caused solely by the temporary effects of ingesting a substance or a substance use disorder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included determining the onus and burden of proof in relation to the exception to the defence of mental health impairment. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the onus was on the defendant to prove that the exception did not apply or whether the onus lay with the Crown to prove the exception on the balance of probabilities. This issue was crucial as it could potentially determine the outcome of the defendant's case.

In its reasoning, the court held that the onus was on the Crown to prove the exception to the defence of mental health impairment on the balance of probabilities. The court found that this approach aligned with the principles of fairness and the protection of individual rights, as it required the prosecution to adduce evidence that clearly demonstrated the exception applied. The court also noted that this interpretation was consistent with statutory provisions and case law that emphasised the importance of ensuring that defendants were not disadvantaged by their mental health conditions in criminal proceedings. The court's decision thus provided clarity on the onus and burden of proof in this context.

The final orders of the court included a ruling that the Crown must prove the exception to the defence of mental health impairment on the balance of probabilities. This ruling clarified the legal framework for future cases involving similar defences and ensured that defendants with mental health impairments would be afforded appropriate protections in the criminal justice system.

Orders