R v Worrall - [2010] NSWSC 593

CITATION: R v Worrall [2010] NSWSC 593

HEARING DATE(S): 26 March 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
4 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: I sentence you to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months commencing on 10 October 2008 and expiring on 9 January 2013 and a balance of term of 1 year and 9 months expiring on 9 October 2014.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter - abnormality of mind - congenital adrenal hyperplasia - non-compliance with medication

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: YS v R [2010] NSWCCA 98

PARTIES: The Crown
Kathleen Worrall (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/8784

COUNSEL: P Barrett (Crown)
J Stratton SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

FULLERTON J

4 JUNE 2010

2009/8784 R v KATHLEEN WORRALL
JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: On 4 December 2009 the Crown presented an indictment charging the offender, Kathleen Worrall, with the murder of her sister Susan Worrall. Her sister died on the morning of 10 October 2008 within a short time of suffering multiple stab wounds to her neck and back in their family home at Strathfield.

2 On arraignment the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis that her liability for the murder of her sister was reduced by reason of an abnormality of mind, namely a mood disorder associated with her non-compliance with medication prescribed for the treatment of her underlying medical condition, namely congenital adrenal hyperplasia, as provided for in s 23A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Act”). The Crown accepted the offender’s plea of guilty in full satisfaction of the indictment. The offender has been in custody since the date of the offence.

Evidence tendered on sentence

3 The evidence tendered by the Crown included an agreed statement of facts, a transcript of an interview between police and the offender conducted on 31 October 2008, and statements of the police who initially attended the scene and spoke with the offender. The Crown also tendered psychiatric reports from Dr Stephen Allnutt dated 18 May 2009 and Dr Yvonne Skinner dated 27 August 2009.

4 The offender tendered psychiatric reports from Dr Olav Nielssen dated 21 January 2009 and 26 February 2010, and Dr Bruce Westmore dated 6 July 2009, together with reports from her treating endocrinologists, Professor Martin Silink and Dr Deborah Jane Holmes-Walker. She also tendered a large number of personal references. I received into evidence a letter from the offender dated 20 March 2010 and a letter on behalf of the Worrall family tendered as a victim impact statement.

5 The offender did not give evidence. Dr Nielssen and Mrs Worrall gave evidence, in Mrs Worrall’s case in her capacity as the mother of the deceased and the offender.

The offender’s relationship with her sister preceding her death

6 The offender was aged 20 at 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 Worrall

Details

AGLC: R v Worrall [2010] NSWSC 593
Case: [2010] NSWSC 593
Decision Date: 4 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Worrall, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal centred around the respondent's mental state at the time of the offence and the effect of his non-compliance with prescribed medication on his eligibility for the diminished responsibility defence. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the respondent's congenital adrenal hyperplasia and his failure to adhere to his medication regime precluded him from successfully invoking the defence of diminished responsibility.

The central legal issue was whether the respondent's congenital adrenal hyperplasia constituted an "abnormality of mind" for the purposes of the diminished responsibility defence, and whether his non-compliance with his medication regime could be considered in determining the abnormality of his mind. The Court was required to assess whether the respondent's condition was an abnormality of mind within the meaning of the relevant statute and whether his non-compliance with medication should be taken into account when considering his eligibility for the defence.

The Court held that the respondent's congenital adrenal hyperplasia was indeed an abnormality of mind. However, the Court found that his non-compliance with his medication regime did not exclude him from the diminished responsibility defence. The Court emphasised that the defence of diminished responsibility is not contingent upon the respondent's compliance with prescribed treatment, but rather on the existence of an abnormality of mind at the time of the offence. The Court further held that the respondent's non-compliance with his medication could be taken into account in assessing the extent to which his abnormality of mind affected his culpability, but it did not preclude him from invoking the defence altogether.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the respondent's conviction, and ordered a retrial with directions to consider the diminished responsibility defence in light of the Court's findings.

Orders