R v SP (No 2)

[2006] ACTSC 78

R v SP (No 2) [2006] ACTSC 78 (12 July 2006)

CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the person – homicide – murder – infanticide
CRIMINAL LAW – criminal liability and capacity – defence matters – insanity

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 308, 320, 324

R v Goonerage [2005] ACTSC 96 followed

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No.  SCC 79 of 2006

Judge:             Madgwick J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              12 July 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No.  SCC 79 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:R

AND:SP

ORDER

Judge:  Madgwick J
Date:  12 July 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The accused be acquitted on the ground of mental impairment.

1. The accused submit to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to make a mental health order, and for that purpose she is to report to the Tribunal’s offices within seven days.

1. The accused is charged that on 11 October 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory she murdered her son, then a few days old. She has pleaded guilty on the ground of mental impairment in accordance with what was s 320 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (‘the Crimes Act’). 

2. Pursuant to that section, an accused person had an entitlement to be acquitted of an indictable offence on the grounds of mental impairment if he or she established on the balance of probabilities that at the time of the alleged offence the accused was, as a result of mental dysfunction or mental illness, either incapable of knowing what he or she was doing, or incapable of understanding that what he or she was doing was wrong.  Subsection (3) provided that evidence could not be adduced by the prosecution to establish that an accused was so entitled to be acquitted except with the leave of the Court.  I gave such leave.

3. Although there was no issue between the parties, the proceedings remain a criminal trial, and accordingly I direct myself, in accordance with the law, in relation to all of the matters which a jury would ordinarily be directed before retiring to consider its verdict.  Shortly, for a case such as this, Spender J summarised those directions in R v Goonerage [2005] ACTSC 96 at [8]-[10], a judgment given on 30 September 2005, and those directions are appended to these reasons.

4. The accused gave birth to her deceased son at 5.30 am on Thursday 6 October 2005.  She was then a young married woman who had been ordinarily welcoming of the birth of her child.  She was a person of impeccable character, qualified in one of the learned professions – not the law – and well supported both by her husband, who has continued to display understanding and support throughout, and also by her mother who, by reason of her own medical training, was present in Australia to support her daughter and was very well qualified to do so.

5. The child was born healthy.

6. During the pregnancy,…