Regina v Cheatham - [2000] NSWCCA 282

CITATION: REGINA v CHEATHAM [2000] NSWCCA 282

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60755/98

HEARING DATE(S): 17 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Stephen Darcy Cheatham

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; James J at 96; Sperling J at 97

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70058/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Newman J

COUNSEL : J Nicholson SC (Appellant)
M Grogan (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Sydney Regional Aboriginal Legal Service (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - defences - insanity - second limb of the M’Naghten test - CRIMINAL LAW - defences - diminished responsibility - requirement on trial judge to direct jury - Crimes Act 1900, s23A - CRIMINAL LAW - conduct of trial judge - no excessive intervention - CRIMINAL LAW - no fresh evidence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Amendment (Diminished Responsibility) Act 1997
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392
GIO (NSW) v Glasscock (1991) 13 MVR 521
Mickleberg v The Queen (1988-1989) 167 CLR 259
Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107
R v Ayoub [1984] 2 NSWLR 511
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677
R v Clewer (1953) 37 Cr App R 37
R v Gomaa (Supreme Court of NSW, Badgery-Parker J, 27 April 1994, unreported)
R v Hemsley (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 8 December 1995, unreported)
R v Ion (1996) 89 A Crim R 81
R v Wilson (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 7 March 1995, unreported)
Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Yuill v Yuill [1945] 1 All ER 183

DECISION: Appeal allowed; a new trial to be held.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60755/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
JAMES J
SPERLING J
Friday 4 August 2000

REGINA v Stephen Darcy CHEATHAM

Facts
The Appellant killed his wife and older daughter and attempted also to kill his younger daughter. At his trial the only issue was the defence of insanity. The jury returned verdicts of guilty for the two murder charges and the one attempted murder charge. The Appellant appealed arguing that the trial judge, Newman J, did not explain to the jury adequately the second limb of the M’Naghten test, that his Honour was obliged to leave the question of diminished responsibility to the jury and that his Honour’s questioning of one of the expert witnesses deprived the Appellant of a fair trial. It was also argued that the verdicts could not be supported by the evidence and, alternatively, that they should be quashed in the light of fresh evidence.

Held
(per Spigelman CJ, James and Sperling JJ agreeing)
a Insanity Defence
1 The evidence that the Appellant was suffering from a “disease of the mind” was before the jury with a degree of clarity that did not call for repetition by the trial judge. His Honour’s direction on 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 Regina v Cheatham

Details

AGLC: Regina v Cheatham [2000] NSWCCA 282
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 282
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Cheatham, the appellant faced charges related to a serious criminal offence. The central dispute revolved around the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence, specifically whether the appellant could be deemed not guilty by reason of insanity or diminished responsibility. The case was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the decision of the trial judge and the jury's verdict.

The court was required to address several key legal issues. Primarily, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge correctly applied the second limb of the M’Naghten test to assess the defendant's insanity. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge was required to direct the jury on the defence of diminished responsibility under s23A of the Crimes Act 1900. Another issue was whether the trial judge's conduct during the trial amounted to excessive intervention. Finally, the court had to consider whether the introduction of fresh evidence was permissible at the appellate stage.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the second limb of the M’Naghten test and did not err in declining to direct the jury on the defence of diminished responsibility. The court held that the trial judge's conduct did not constitute excessive intervention and was within the bounds of judicial discretion. The court also concluded that the fresh evidence presented did not warrant a departure from the established principles of appellate review. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the confirmation of the conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the trial judge was affirmed.

Orders