R v Warren Scott (No 2) - [2021] NSWSC 1201

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Warren Scott (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1201
Hearing dates: 23, 24, 26, 31 August and 14 and 16 September 2021
Date of orders: 22 September 2021
Decision date: 22 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) I find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
(2) The accused is convicted of manslaughter.
(3) The proceedings are stood over for submissions on sentence on 7 December 2021 at 10:00am.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Murder — Partial defences — Substantial impairment – trial by judge alone – where accused admitted to stabbing deceased 31 times but relied on partial defence of substantial impairment – where accused was schizophrenic and non-compliant with medication due to alcohol dependence – whether capacity to understand events, judge whether actions were right or wrong or control his actions were substantially impaired by abnormality of mind or by intoxication – whether impairment so substantial as to warrant reduction in liability from murder to manslaughter – community values – accused convicted of manslaughter

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A, 428A, 428C
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229
Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
R v Haydar (No.3) [2017] NSWSC 159
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Quinn (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1244
R v Trotter (1993) 35 NSWLR 428

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Warren Anthony Scott (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms N Keay (Crown)
Ms M Avenell SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT

File Number(s): 2019/105874
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

On 4 April 2019, Warren Anthony Scott was drinking at his mother’s home in Eden with her friend Edward Carter. Without any warning or provocation he grabbed a knife and held it to his mother’s neck. She was able to calm him down but ten minutes later he grabbed a second knife and threatened her again. Ms Scott fled the premises to get help, leaving the accused and the deceased alone. Police arrived sometime later and remained outside the premises monitoring the situation. During that time the accused stabbed the deceased 31 times. Police entered the premises, but Mr Carter had already died from his wounds. Mr Scott was charged with the murder of Mr Carter.
At the time of the stabbing the accused was a 36-year-old Aboriginal man who suffered from schizophrenia, an intellectual disability and chronic alcoholism.
On 23 August 2021, the accused was arraigned before me on an indictment charging him with the murder of Edward Carter. He pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment. He contended that he was not liable to be convicted of Mr Carter’s murder by…

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 Warren Scott (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Warren Scott (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1201
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1201
Decision Date: 22 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Warren Scott, was on trial for the murder of an individual, with the case proceeding in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The accused admitted to stabbing the deceased 31 times but raised the partial defence of substantial impairment due to his schizophrenia and alcohol dependence, which led to non-compliance with medication. The court was tasked with determining whether the accused's capacity to understand the events, judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or control his actions were substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind or intoxication. Additionally, the court had to assess whether this impairment was so substantial as to warrant a reduction in liability from murder to manslaughter, considering the community's values.

The court carefully examined the evidence and expert opinions presented on the accused's mental state and the impact of his condition and intoxication on his actions. It considered whether the accused's actions were driven by an irresistible impulse due to his mental illness or whether his intoxication significantly influenced his behaviour. The court also evaluated the degree of impairment and its effect on the accused's responsibility for his actions. Ultimately, the court found that the accused's substantial impairment, due to both his schizophrenia and intoxication, warranted a reduction in his criminal liability.

In light of the findings, the court concluded that the accused's actions, although violent and premeditated, were substantially influenced by his mental condition and intoxication. The court held that the accused's capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his actions or control them was significantly impaired. Consequently, the court convicted the accused of manslaughter rather than murder, reflecting a balance between the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors of the accused's substantial impairment. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the accused's mental state and intoxication when assessing criminal liability in cases involving severe impairments.

Orders