R v Yeaman - [2021] ACTSC 252

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Yeaman
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 252
Hearing Dates:	16, 17 September 2021
DecisionDate:	7 October 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Guilty of arson. Not guilty of intentionally or recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. Special verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment on alternative count of causing grievous bodily harm
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Arson – inflict grievous bodily harm – pleas of not guilty on the ground of mental impairment – meaning of mental impairment – consideration of which party bears the legal burden of showing or negativing that a mental impairment had a relevant effect listed in s 28(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 20, 25, 321 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 29, 56, 58, 59, 404 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 7.3 Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) s 139 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C
Cases Cited:	DPP v Scheele [2016] ACTCA 23 R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 R v Jackson [2021] ACTSC 120 R v Mason [2019] ACTSC 161 R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68
Texts Cited:	Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law Principles of Criminal Responsibility and Other Matters (Interim Report, July 1990) Criminal Law Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, Chapters 1 and 2 General Principles of Criminal Responsibility (Final Report, December 1992) Stephen Odgers, Principles of Federal Criminal Law (Thomson Reuters, 4th ed, 2019)
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Julian Leslie Yeaman ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson ( Crown) B Collaery ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors ( Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 51, 288 of 2020

MURRELL CJ

The trial

The accused faces charges arising from incidents on 21 October 2019 and 31 May 2020. It was agreed that the trials should proceed together.

Pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (SCA), the accused elected to be tried by a judge alone.

When arraigned, the accused pleaded not guilty on the ground of mental impairment to the following three offences:

(a)Count 1: on 21 October 2019 commit arson, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code).
(b)Count 2: on 31 May 2020 intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).
(c)Alternative Count: on 31 May 2020 recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 20 of the Crimes Act.

In relation to the incident on 31 May 2020, under s 49 of the Crimes Act further alternative verdicts are available, including causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act.

As required by s 68C(2) and (3) of the SCA, I set out the principles of law that I apply,…

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 Yeaman

Details

AGLC: R v Yeaman [2021] ACTSC 252
Case: [2021] ACTSC 252
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- **Parties, Dispute, and Court**: Julian Leslie Yeaman was charged with arson, intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, and recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by Murrell CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

- **Legal Issues**: The key legal issues were whether the accused's mental impairment negated his criminal responsibility for the charges and which party bore the burden of proving or disproving that the accused's mental impairment had a relevant effect under s 28(1) of the Criminal Code.

- **Court's Reasoning and Outcome**: The court found that the accused was not criminally responsible for causing grievous bodily harm due to his mental impairment, but was guilty of arson. The court held that the prosecution bore the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's mental impairment did not have a s 28(1) effect, as the legislation did not expressly impose such a burden on the accused. The court concluded that the accused knew the nature and quality of his conduct and that it was wrong, but there was a reasonable possibility that he could not control his conduct during the assault on his mother.

- **Final Orders**: The court entered a guilty verdict for arson, not guilty verdicts for intentionally and recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, and a special verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment for causing grievous bodily harm.

Orders