R v Sleiman - [2010] NSWSC 1206

CITATION: R v Sleiman [2010] NSWSC 1206
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 18 October 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Schmidt J

DECISION: Not guilty by reason of mental illness.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - judge alone trial - murder - defence of mental illness

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health Act 2007
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Mental Health (Criminal Procedures) Act 1990

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Mizzi v The Queen [1960] HCA 77; (1960) 105 CLR 659
R v Coles [2008] NSWSC 682
R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
R v Huy Pham [2007] NSWSC 1313
Regina v M’Naghton (1843) 8 ER 718
The King v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358

PARTIES: Regina
Omran Sleiman

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/10647

COUNSEL: Mr T Thorpe (Crown)
Mr P Winch (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of the Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Public Defender (Accused)

- 28 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

SCHMIDT J

WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2010

2010/10647 R v SLEIMAN

JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: Pursuant to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 Omran Sleiman is charged with the murder of David Phillip Williams on 11 January 2010 at Belmore in the State of New South Wales. Under s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 he has elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone. The Crown has consented to that election. A plea of not guilty has been entered by the accused, who has relied on the defence of mental illness.

2 Under s 133(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a judge trying a criminal proceeding without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury on the question of guilt. A judgment by a judge in such cases must include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact upon which the judge relies (s 133(2)). If any act or law requires a warning to be given to a jury, the judge is to take the warning into account in dealing with the matter (s 133(3)).

3 There was no issue under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 as to the accused’s fitness to be tried for the offence with which he has been charged. I am satisfied that the evidence established his fitness. The accused is presumed innocent. He gave no evidence, but no adverse inference flows from that election. The accused does not dispute that he was responsible for the acts which caused Mr William’s death. His defence was based on evidence which both parties accept showed that at the time that he caused Mr William’s death, the accused was suffering from a mental illness, schizophrenia or paranoid schizophrenia.

4 It follows that if I…

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 Sleiman

Details

AGLC: R v Sleiman [2010] NSWSC 1206
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1206
Decision Date: 20 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sleiman involved the accused, Mr Sleiman, who was tried for the murder of an individual. The case was heard by a single judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria, as it was a judge alone trial. The central issue in this case was whether Mr Sleiman, who was suffering from a mental illness, could be held criminally liable for the act of murder. The defence raised the plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness, contending that his mental condition rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act or that it was wrong.

The court was required to determine the threshold for criminal liability in cases where the accused's mental state is in question. Specifically, it had to assess whether Mr Sleiman's mental illness was of such a degree that it negated his ability to form the requisite intent for murder. The court examined the legal standards for insanity defences and the application of the M'Naghten Rules, which require a determination of whether the accused was unable to understand the nature of the act or that it was wrong due to a mental disease or defect.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed evidence regarding Mr Sleiman's mental health, including expert psychiatric testimony. The court found that while Mr Sleiman suffered from a significant mental illness, it did not reach the level necessary to absolve him of criminal responsibility under the M'Naghten Rules. The court held that Mr Sleiman was aware of the nature and wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence. Consequently, the court found him guilty of murder. The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the term determined by the court, reflecting the gravity of the offence committed.

Orders