Legal Research
Cases
R v Siemek (No. 1)

R v Siemek (No. 1)

Case [2021] NSWSC 1292 13 October 2021

Criminal Liability

Mental Health Impairment Defence

Unfitness to Stand Trial

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
Hearing dates: 11 October 2021
Date of orders: 13 October 2021
Decision date: 13 October 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1 On the charge that the Accused on 27 May 2020, at Euroka in the State of New South Wales did murder Vincent Evans, the Court finds the act proven, but the Accused not criminally responsible for it.
2 Verdict entered on indictment: “Act proven but not criminally responsible”.

Catchwords:
CRIME – judge alone trial – murder – deceased stabbed multiple times – defence of mental health impairment under s.28 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (“MHCIFP Act”) – diagnosis of Bipolar 1 Disorder or Schizoaffective Disorder – parties agree defence available under s. 31 MHCIFP Act – function of Court at trial where s.31 applies – unanimous medical evidence that Accused subject to “mental health impairment” – unanimous medical evidence that Accused did not know that act causing death was wrong in that he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong (s.28(1)(b) MHCIFP Act) – Court satisfied that defence of mental impairment established (s.31(c) MHCIFP Act) – special verdict entered under ss.30 and 31 MHCIFP Act of “act proven but not criminally responsible”

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:
Carter v R [2019] NSWCCA 11
Craigie v Faircloth & Reynolds Pty Ltd and Ors [2021] NSWSC 1211
Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
Lucas v The Queen (1970) 120 CLR 171; [1970] HCA 14
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
R v Jenkins (1963) 64 SR(NSW) 20
R v Klamo (2008) 18 VR 644; [2008] VSCA 75
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Tonga [2021] NSWSC 1064
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
Tumanako v R (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
Wainohu v State of New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24

Texts Cited:
New South Wales Law Reform Commission, Report 138, “People With Cognitive and Mental Health Impairments in the Criminal Justice System – Criminal Responsibility and Consequences”, 2013

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Justin Karl Siemek (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr BN Queenan (Crown)
Mr B Neild (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/158889
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment

JOHNSON J: On 11 October 2021, the Accused, Justin Karl Siemek, was arraigned on an indictment which charged that, on 27 May 2020, at Euroka in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Vincent Evans. 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 Siemek (No. 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1292
Decision Date: 13 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Siemek (No. 1) involved a trial before a judge alone, where the defendant was charged with murder following the stabbing death of an individual. The primary dispute centred on whether the accused could be held criminally responsible for the murder due to a potential mental health impairment. The court's task was to determine if the defence of mental health impairment, as outlined in the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, was applicable in this case.

The court was required to decide whether the accused was suffering from a mental health impairment as defined in section 28 of the MHCIFP Act and if this impairment negated his criminal responsibility. The parties agreed that the defence was available under section 31 of the MHCIFP Act, which necessitated the court to ascertain if the accused knew that his act was wrong, or if he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act was wrong. The unanimous medical evidence presented indicated that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment and that he did not know the act was wrong.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the unanimous medical evidence regarding the accused's mental health status and his inability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions. The court found that the defence of mental health impairment was established, satisfying the criteria outlined in section 31(c) of the MHCIFP Act. Consequently, the court entered a special verdict under sections 30 and 31 of the MHCIFP Act, declaring that while the act was proven, the accused was not criminally responsible for the murder due to his mental health impairment.

Orders