R v Wilson (No 4) - [2017] NSWSC 1730

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wilson (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1730
Hearing dates: 27 November 2017, 28 November 2017, 30 November 2017, 1 December 2017, 4 December 2017, 5 December 2017 and 6 December 2017
Date of orders: 13 December 2017
Decision date: 13 December 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
On the limited evidence available, Ms Wilson is not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – special hearing under Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 – murder – judge alone – alternative charge of manslaughter – accused suffering mental impairment – whether accused intended to seriously injure victim when she hit him with a metal pole – how numerous burns were caused –– whether victim was struck before he was burnt by boiling water – self-defence – provocation – partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind – verdict – on the limited evidence available accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited:
Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659; [1960] HCA 77
R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718; [1843 - 60] All ER 229; R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1
R v Wilson (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1680
Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312; [1990] HCA 61
Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 167; [1986] HCA 76
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Pearl Marie Wilson
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms K Ratcliffe (Crown)
Mr P McGrath SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/88509 and 2013/44091
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Ms Wilson is charged under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) with having murdered Jason Shepstone on 12 February 2013, at her home, where he often lived with her. On that charge a verdict that she is guilty of the uncharged offence of manslaughter, is an available alternative.
Mr Shepstone was a long term alcoholic who suffered from cirrhosis of the liver so advanced, that in February 2013 it could have led to his death at any time. It is common ground between the parties, however, that his death resulted from the combined effects of multiple burns, blunt force injuries and the condition of his liver.
On 13 February 2013, after ambulance officers who Ms Wilson called found that Mr Shepstone had died, she admitted to them and later to police, that she had assaulted Mr Shepstone. The various accounts Ms Wilson gave that day and later in 2014 and 2015 to the forensic psychiatrists, Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt, differed in their detail. But she has never disputed the admissions which she made on 13 February, that she…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 1730
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1730
Decision Date: 13 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Wilson, was charged with the murder of a man, who was struck with a metal pole and then had boiling water poured over him. The case was heard in a court under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. The defendant was alleged to have been suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the incident. The court was required to decide whether the defendant intended to seriously injure the victim when he hit him with the pole, how the numerous burns on the victim's body were caused, whether the victim was struck before he was burnt by boiling water, and whether the defendant's actions were in self-defence, provocation, or a partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. The court found that the evidence was limited and could not establish the defendant's intention to seriously injure the victim at the time of the attack. The court found the defendant guilty of manslaughter but not guilty of murder, considering the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind. The court concluded that the defendant's mental impairment significantly impaired his ability to form the necessary intent for murder, and thus, he was only guilty of manslaughter. The court's final order was that the defendant be detained indefinitely in a psychiatric hospital under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, as he was considered a risk to the public due to his mental impairment.

Orders