R v Waszczuk - [2012] NSWSC 1080

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Waszczuk [2012] NSWSC 1080
Hearing dates: 5-6 November 2012
Decision date: 08 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
Return a special verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness and make the following orders:
(1) Martin Jan Waszczuk is to be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law;
(2) I direct that as soon as practicable, the Registrar may notify the Minister of Health of these orders; and
(3) I direct that as soon as practicable the Registrar may notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal of my verdict and of this order, and provide the Tribunal the following documentation:
(a) a copy of these reasons for the verdict and orders;
(b) the transcript of the special hearing; and
(c) a copy of the exhibits tendered during the special hearing.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - special hearing - murder - stabbing - defence of mental illness
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - special hearing - appointment of amicus curiae
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: R v Waszczuk [2012] NSWSC 380
R v Issa (unreported, 16 October 1995, Sperling J)
R v Damic [1982] 2 NSWLR 750; 6 A Crim R 35
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179 CLR 500
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226; 63 NSWLR 490
Cvetkovic v R [2010] NSWCCA 329
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Martin Jan Waszczuk
Representation: Counsel:
H Baker (Crown)
G James QC (Amicus Curiae)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2009/74187
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Background

Martin Waszczuk (the accused) was charged with the murder of his father, Jan Waszczuk (the deceased) on 24 May 2009.

The accused pleaded guilty to the charge and his plea was entered in the Local Court. He adhered to his plea and confirmed it on arraignment in this Court.

When the matter came before RA Hulme J for sentence, his Honour expressed concern about the accused's fitness to plead, since there was no evidence as to why he had killed his father. On 24 March 2011, RA Hulme J was satisfied that the accused was unfit to be tried and referred him to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. On 30 August 2011, the Tribunal found that the accused was fit to plead to the offence with which he was charged. The Tribunal conducted a further review on 8 December 2011 and issued its determination on 21 December 2011, again finding that the accused was fit to be tried. On 4 May 2012, Davies J found the accused unfit to be tried on the charge of murder: R v Waszczuk [2012] NSWSC 380. By determination made on 30 June 2012, 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 Waszczuk

Details

AGLC: R v Waszczuk [2012] NSWSC 1080
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1080
Decision Date: 08 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a special hearing before the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant was challenging his conviction for murder. The appellant, Waszczuk, had been convicted for the stabbing death of his partner. A central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in excluding evidence of the appellant’s mental illness at the time of the incident. The court was also required to determine whether the appointment of an amicus curiae, a legal representative for the interests of the public, was appropriate and beneficial in this case.

The court examined the exclusion of evidence relating to the appellant's mental health. The trial judge had ruled that such evidence was not relevant to the question of guilt or innocence. The court considered whether the exclusion of this evidence was a significant error that might have affected the outcome of the trial. Additionally, the court assessed the appropriateness and utility of appointing an amicus curiae in this appeal, considering whether this step was necessary to ensure a fair and comprehensive review of the case, particularly given the potential implications of mental health evidence.

The court held that the exclusion of evidence regarding the appellant’s mental health was not a ground for allowing the appeal. The court found that such evidence did not bear directly on the issue of whether the appellant had committed the murder. The court also concluded that the appointment of an amicus curiae was not necessary, as the existing parties were adequately representing the interests involved in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for murder was upheld.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of the appellant, Waszczuk, remain unchanged. The court did not find any basis to alter the trial judge's decisions, and therefore, no further action was required regarding the original conviction.

Orders