Regina v Gavranovic - [1999] NSWSC 205

CITATION: Regina v GAVRANOVIC [1999] NSWSC 205

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70013/98

HEARING DATE(S): 8 March and 12 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 March 1999

PARTIES :

The Crown
Rafael GAVRANOVIC

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J

COUNSEL : M Tedeschi QC (Crown)
A Haesler (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1996
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v McNaughton (1843) 8 ER 718 at 722
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 at 189-190
R v Sodeman (1943) 55 CLR 192 at 215

DECISION: Not guilty by reason of mental illness.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
NEWMAN J
FRIDAY, 12 MARCH 1999
70013/98 - REGINA v Rafael GAVRANOVIC
REASONS FOR VERDICT
1 HIS HONOUR: Following an election made by the accused pursuant to s 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which election was consented to by the Crown, Rafael Gavranovic was tried by myself, in the absence of a jury, for the crime of murder.
2 He pleaded not guilty to that offence. While the factual material adduced by the Crown in its case was uncontested by the accused, he raised a defence of mental illness. It is trite law that the onus of proving that defence is upon the accused, the standard of proof being the civil standard, namely, proof on a balance of probabilities. I should add that in determining the Crown’s factual allegations, I have utilised the criminal standard, namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3 I turn then to the Crown case. The Crown alleged that the accused murdered Jiri Zoufal, a Czech tourist, near Kings Cross on Saturday, 6 September 1997 at around 7 pm. Shortly beforehand the late Mr Zoufal was observed by the accused near Hyde Park. The accused thought that at that time the deceased was staring at him and when the deceased looked away from him, the accused was of the view that the deceased was looking at him out of the corner of his eye. That apprehension arose because the accused at the time was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
4 Co-incidentally, with his apprehension that the deceased was looking at him, the accused was suffering from an auditory hallucination which manifested itself in the form of voices, which appeared threatening to himself, his mother and other members of his family. His mental illness caused the accused to think that the voices which he thought he was hearing, emanated from the deceased. The combination of his apprehension that the deceased was staring at him and his auditory hallucinations, caused the accused to feel threatened.
5 That feeling had been present for some days prior to 6 September 1997. Indeed, as will be revealed later in these reasons, in the past, the accused had suffered from auditory hallucinations, which had been recorded in medical records following his admission to hospitals. So threatened had he felt as a consequence of the paranoiac element of his mental condition,…

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 Gavranovic

Details

AGLC: Regina v Gavranovic [1999] NSWSC 205
Case: [1999] NSWSC 205
Decision Date: 12 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Gavranovic, Rafael Gavranovic was tried for the murder of Jiri Zoufal. The accused pleaded not guilty and raised a defence of mental illness. The trial was conducted by Justice Newman in the absence of a jury. The Crown presented uncontested evidence that the accused had killed the deceased using a tomahawk, an act that was premeditated and deliberate. However, the defence argued that the accused was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the murder, which impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his actions or to comprehend that they were wrong.

The court was required to determine whether the accused's mental illness constituted a valid defence under the relevant provisions of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act. The legal issue hinged on whether the accused's illness deprived him of the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to control his conduct. The court considered both lay and medical evidence, which collectively demonstrated that the accused was suffering from a severe mental disorder that rendered him unable to understand the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

Justice Newman concluded that the defence of mental illness was successfully established. The court found that the accused was not criminally responsible for the murder by reason of mental illness. Consequently, the court ordered that the accused be detained in a psychiatric institution, subject to the oversight of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. This verdict means that the accused will not be released outright but will be subject to periodic reviews to determine if he can be safely released into the community. The court's decision ensures that the accused receives appropriate psychiatric care while also safeguarding public safety.

Orders