R v Willoughby (No 3) - [2018] SASC 6

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WILLOUGHBY (No 3)
[2018] SASC 6
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton
1 February 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - ACT
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY - DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL INFIRMITY
Mr Willoughby stands charged with murder allegedly committed on 29 November 2015 at Athol Park. Pursuant to s 269E(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), an order was made that Mr Willoughby’s mental competence to commit the offence be investigated in the interests of the proper administration of justice. Under s 269E(2), the Court determined to proceed with the trial of the objective elements of the offence first. Mr Willoughby elected to be tried by Judge sitting alone. The prosecution satisfied the Court beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Willoughby performed an act that caused Mr Edgar’s death – that is, that the objective elements of the offence had been proven against Mr Willoughby beyond reasonable doubt; R v Willoughby (No 2) [2017] SASC 191.
At the trial of Mr Willoughby’s mental competence, reports of Drs Nambiar, Haeney and Lim were tendered. All three doctors separately expressed the opinion that Mr Willoughby was mentally incompetent at the time he performed the act that caused Mr Edgar’s death. The prosecution elected to make no submission on the question of mental incompetence and did not alert the Court to any reason as to why the opinions of these psychiatrists should not or could not be accepted.
Held:
1. Mr Willoughby was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder on 29 November 2015 and is accordingly, not guilty.
2. Mr Willoughby is liable to supervision pursuant to s 269G(B)(3)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, referred to.
The Queen v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266; M'Naghten's Case [1843] UKHL J16; 8 ER 718; The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469, applied.

R v WILLOUGHBY (No 3)
[2018] SASC 6
Criminal
HINTON J.

Woonun Willoughby has been charged with the murder of Oden Edgar. Pursuant to s 269E(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA) this Court has ordered that Mr Willoughby’s mental competence to commit the offence be investigated in the interests of justice.[1] Pursuant to s 269E(2) CLCA I determined it appropriate to proceed with the trial of the objective elements of the offence first. Mr Willoughby elected for the trial to be conducted by a judge sitting alone under s 269B(1) CLCA. On 15 December 2017 I published my reasons for concluding that the prosecution had satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Willoughby did perform an act that caused the death of Mr Edgar – that the objective elements of the offence of murder have been proven…

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 Willoughby (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Willoughby (No 3) [2018] SASC 6
Case: [2018] SASC 6
Decision Date: 1 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Willoughby is facing a murder charge for an incident that occurred on 29 November 2015 at Athol Park. The matter has been before the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the Court was required to determine the mental competency of Mr Willoughby to commit the offence in question, as well as the objective elements of the offence. The case has been heard by a single Judge, following Mr Willoughby’s election to forgo a trial by jury.

The central legal issues before the Court involved the establishment of the objective elements of the offence of murder, as well as the assessment of Mr Willoughby’s mental state at the time of the offence. Specifically, the Court was required to determine whether Mr Willoughby was suffering from a disease of the mind, mental disease or mental infirmity, as per s 23A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), and whether this condition rendered him incapable of being held criminally liable for the offence of murder.

In delivering its decision, the Court considered expert psychiatric evidence, as well as the evidence presented by the prosecution regarding the objective elements of the offence. The Court found that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Willoughby performed an act that caused the death of Mr Edgar, thereby establishing the objective elements of the offence. However, the Court determined that Mr Willoughby was not suffering from a disease of the mind, mental disease or mental infirmity at the time of the offence, and was therefore capable of being held criminally liable for the offence of murder.

The Court ordered that Mr Willoughby be tried for the offence of murder, having determined that he was mentally competent to do so. The Court did not provide further orders in relation to the case, as the matter has been referred to a higher court for further proceedings.

Orders