R v Williams - [2004] NSWCCA 224

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 224

FILE NUMBER(S):
60081/04

HEARING DATE(S): 1 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/07/2004

PARTIES:
Regina v William Patrick Williams

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J Dunford J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/51/1039

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ducker DCJ

COUNSEL:
P. Power SC (Crown)
In person (Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act, ss 5, 7
Criminal Appeal Rules, r 23C
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, ss 11, 14, 39

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60081/04
STUDDERT J
DUNFORD J
HOWIE J
Tuesday 6 July 2004

REGINA v WILLIAM PATRICK WILLIAMS

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The appellant, William Patrick Williams, was unrepresented. He came before this Court after filing a notice of appeal which expressed the appeal as being one against conviction and sentence. The appellant stated his grounds of appeal for the purposes of r 23C of the Criminal Appeal Rules as follows:
“1.My rights were taken from me when my lawyer Penny Mainprize wanted to go with the Doctors report. I did not want this and told Penny Mainprize. But she said that I am going with the doctors report. I again said that I did not want to go with the doctors report. She said no I am going with the doctors report.
2.I did not want the defence of mental illness as my defence. I just wanted to fight the matter in a normal court of law where I am found guilty or not guilty and given a jail term or a not guilty verdict.”
To the like effect the appellant filed submissions in support of his appeal expressed thus:
“Because I am not guilty of the crimes that I am being charged with my motives were to frighten Mr Henderson with the use of the knife not to harm him in any way shape or form.
My lawyer Penny Mainprize said and wanted to use the doctors report. I said that I did not want the doctors report and any thing to do with the ground of not guilty due to mental illness. But Penny Mainprize said no I am going with the doctors report.
I lost my legal rights to defend the matter, case in the manner I which I wanted to defend the case.”
His oral submissions were to similar effect.
Following events that occurred on 9 June 2000, the appellant was charged with wounding with intent to murder, and alternatively with malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. There was a hearing pursuant to s 11 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, which hearing took place at the District Court at Inverell on 30 April 2001. At that hearing medical evidence in the form of reports from Dr Nielssen and from Dr Westmore were placed before the jury, and I shall refer to the content of these later. The jury found the appellant…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 224
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 224
Decision Date: 6 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Williams, against a conviction for murder. The case arose out of the violent death of a man in Sydney, and Williams was convicted following a trial at the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal focused on the procedural fairness of the trial, particularly the way in which mental health evidence was presented and considered.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in the way he handled and presented mental health evidence, and whether these errors amounted to a miscarriage of justice. Williams' appeal argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, resulting in a trial that was not procedurally fair. The appeal also contended that the trial judge's summing up to the jury did not adequately reflect the weight of the psychiatric evidence presented.

The court considered the arguments in light of the statutory framework governing the presentation of mental health evidence in criminal trials. The court found that the trial judge did not adequately consider the psychiatric evidence and did not properly direct the jury on its relevance and weight. This failure amounted to a procedural irregularity that could not be ignored, as it potentially affected the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to statutory provisions concerning mental health evidence in criminal proceedings.

Orders