R v Trinne (No 2) - [2024] NSWSC 1457

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Trinne (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1457
Hearing dates: 11-12 November 2024
Date of orders: 12 November 2024
Decision date: 15 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Weinstein J
Decision:
See [105]

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – defence of mental health impairment – where parties agree defence available – Court satisfied that defence established – special verdict of act proven but defendant not criminally responsible

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 6, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 47, 49, 53, 55, 56, 59, 79, 84, 109

Cases Cited:
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Eleter [2023] NSWSC 931
R v Siemek (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
R v Siemek(No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1293
R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064
R v Trinne [2023] NSWSC 1212
R v Woodham (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1345

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Glenn Raymond Trinne (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell SC (Crown)
S Apps (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
James Fuggle Rummery (Accused)

File Number(s): 2022/00122511
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The accused, Glenn Raymond Trinne, stands charged with the murder of Graham Priestly on or about 26 April 2022 contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.
On 9 October 2023, Dhanji J conducted a fitness hearing and found that the accused was unfit for trial pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (“the Act”), but that the accused may become fit to be tried within 12 months pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the Act. His Honour referred the accused to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for further review pursuant to s 49(1) of the Act, adjourned the proceedings pending the determination of the Tribunal pursuant to s 47(2)(b) of the Act, and remanded the accused in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act: R v Trinne [2023] NSWSC 1212.
On 30 November 2023, the Tribunal determined that there was a possibility that the accused may become fit within 12 months of Dhanji J’s finding of unfitness on 9 October 2023 (i.e. by 9 October 2024). However, on 11 April 2024 the Tribunal determined that the accused remained unfit to be tried and that he would not become fit by that date.
On 4 July 2024, the Crown advised the Court that the matter would be proceeding pursuant to s 53(2) of the Act. The matter was therefore listed for special hearing pursuant to s 55 of the Act. No election to have the matter determined by a jury was made by the defence and accordingly the special hearing was to be determined by a judge alone pursuant to s 56(9) of the Act.
The Crown and the accused’s counsel advised 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 Trinne (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Trinne (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 1457
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1457
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Trinne (No 2), the accused was charged with murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The matter proceeded to trial with a significant agreement between the prosecution and defence that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment. The court was required to determine whether the accused's mental health condition negated their criminal responsibility for the act of murder. The central legal issue was whether the defence of mental health impairment, as provided for under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic), was established at the time of the offence, thereby absolving the accused of criminal responsibility.

The court considered expert evidence from psychiatrists and psychologists who diagnosed the accused with a severe mental disorder. The defence presented a detailed account of the accused's mental state at the time of the offence, supported by medical records and testimonies from family members. The prosecution did not contest the establishment of the defence but argued that the accused should still be held accountable for their actions. The court thoroughly examined the evidence and concluded that the accused's mental health impairment met the statutory criteria for the defence. The court found that the accused was not criminally responsible for the act due to their mental condition at the time of the offence.

The court returned a special verdict of "act proven but defendant not criminally responsible." This finding allowed the court to acknowledge the factual circumstances of the offence while recognising the accused's diminished capacity due to their mental health impairment. Consequently, the court ordered the accused to be detained in a secure psychiatric facility rather than a prison, reflecting the need for psychiatric treatment rather than punitive measures.

Orders