R v Stables - [2014] NSWSC 697

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697
Hearing dates: 8 May 2014
Decision date: 30 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hidden J
Decision:
On each count not guilty by reason of mental illness

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - trial by judge alone - defence of mental illness
Cases Cited: The King v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226, 63 NSWLR 490, 154 A Crim R 349
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Luke Paul Stables (accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Lynch (Crown)
Ms C Loukas SC (accused)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SE O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission (accused)

File Number(s): 2012/280033

reasons for verdict

The accused, Luke Paul Stables, has been tried before me, sitting without a jury, for the murder of his mother, Enriquita Stables, and the wounding of his brother, Mark Stables. In respect of his brother, he was indicted for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, but in the course of the trial that charge was amended to one of reckless wounding. The charges arise from a tragic incident at the family home at Dean Park in the evening of 6 September 2012. The only issue in relation to both charges is whether he has made out the defence of mental illness.

The accused was 28 years old at the time of the incident. He was living at the family home with his mother, his father, John Stables, and his older brother, Mark. He also has a younger brother, Steven, who is married and who was living at another address in Dean Park.

Background

Enriquita Stables was of Filipino origin. At the time of her death she and John Stables had been married for almost 30 years. It seems that they had been a devoted couple. When he was interviewed by police on the night of the incident, John Stables said that the accused had "virtually killed" him, as Enriquita had been his "whole life."

There is in evidence a volume of material about the accused's medical history. Although it is important, a brief summary of it is sufficient for present purposes. He suffers from neurofibromatosis, a condition which manifests itself as lumps on his body and also in his brain. This was apparent from the age of about 13, and it may have been congenital. As a result he has temporal lobe epilepsy, and has suffered seizures from the age of 19. Neurological testing revealed cognitive impairment, consistent with mild mental retardation.

In interviews with the police the accused's father and brothers described a longstanding pattern of irrational, aggressive and violent behaviour on his part, directed at them. John Stables referred to an incident a couple of years previously when the accused had picked him up and thrown him against a wall, breaking his…

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 Stables

Details

AGLC: R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 697
Case: [2014] NSWSC 697
Decision Date: 30 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction and sentence for the offence of murder. The appellant, Stables, had been convicted by a judge alone without a jury of the murder of his partner. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue for the court was whether the trial judge was correct to exclude the defence of mental illness, specifically diminished responsibility, from the jury's consideration. Stables argued that he suffered from an abnormality of mind which substantially impaired his responsibility for his actions at the time of the offence.

The court examined the legal principles governing the availability of the defence of diminished responsibility. It considered the definition of abnormality of mind and the requirement that it substantially impairs responsibility. The court noted that the trial judge had accepted expert evidence that Stables suffered from an abnormality of mind, but concluded that it did not substantially impair his responsibility. The court found that the trial judge's conclusion was open on the evidence and there was no error of law. The court held that the trial judge was correct to exclude the defence of diminished responsibility from the jury's consideration. The appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

No orders were made as the appeal was dismissed. The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years stood.

Orders