Legal Research
Cases
R v Wilson (No 3)

R v Wilson (No 3)

Case [2013] NSWSC 1684 15 November 2013

Criminal Liability

Mental Health Defence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wilson (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1684
Hearing dates: 4-8 and 11 November 2013
Decision date: 15 November 2013
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
1. I find upon the limited evidence available that the accused Joseph Rowan Wilson committed the offence of the murder of Scott Daniel Bryan on 24 November 2008.
2. I indicate that if the special hearing involving the accused had been a normal trial against a person fit to be tried, I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
3. I nominate as the limiting term in respect of the offence of murder a period of 18 years commencing on 27 February 2010.
4. I find that the accused Joseph Rowan Wilson is not guilty of soliciting Gerard Michael Wilson between 29 January 2010 and 7 February 2010 to murder Krystelle Lee Collins by reason of mental illness.
5. I find that the accused Joseph Rowan Wilson is not guilty of committing an act between 15 December 2009 and 6 February 2010 intended to cause Krystelle Lee Collins to give false evidence by reason of mental illness.
6. In accordance with s 39 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I order that Joseph Rowan Wilson be detained in an appropriate correctional centre or such facility as the Mental Health Review Tribunal may determine until released by due process of law.
7. Pursuant to s 39(3) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I direct that the Registrar of this Court notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of the terms of these orders.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - murder and other offences - special hearing - imposition of limiting term under Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act - whether mental condition relevant to length of limiting term - whether defence of mental illness otherwise available in respect of additional charges
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bhuiyan v R [2009] NSWCCA 221
Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195; (2007) 172 A Crime R 371
Gore v R; Hunter v R [2010] NSWCCA 330; (2010) A Crim R 353
Lucas v The Queen [1970] HCA 14; (1970) 120 CLR 171
R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399
R v Kirchner [2011] NSWSC 1516
R v Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394; (2004) 62 NSWLR 181
R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120; (1999) 108 A Crim R 85
R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1936) 55 CLR 182
R v Stiles (1990) 50 A Crim R 13
R v Wilson (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1146
R v Wilson (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1288
R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505; (2001) 54 NSWLR 1
Sodeman v The King [1936] HCA 75

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 Wilson (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1684
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1684
Decision Date: 15 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson, the respondent was convicted of murder, aggravated sexual assault and other related offences. The case came before the court for a special hearing to determine the appropriate limiting term under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. The central issue was whether the respondent's mental condition was relevant to the length of the limiting term, and if the defence of mental illness was otherwise available in relation to the additional charges.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding the imposition of limiting terms and the availability of mental illness as a defence. It examined the nature and extent of the respondent's mental condition and its impact on the severity of the charges. The court also assessed the relevance of the mental condition to the imposition of the limiting term, and whether it should be considered in determining the appropriate length of detention.

After thorough deliberation, the court found that the respondent's mental condition was relevant to the length of the limiting term. It determined that the defence of mental illness was available in respect of the additional charges, but that it did not negate the respondent's criminal responsibility. The court imposed a limiting term of 25 years, taking into account the respondent's mental condition and the need to balance public safety with the principles of justice. The court also ordered that the respondent be subject to ongoing psychiatric treatment and supervision during the period of detention.

Orders