Regina v Lance Vivian Stephens - [1999] NSWSC 811

CITATION: Regina v Lance Vivian STEPHENS [1999] NSWSC 811

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Jurisdiction

FILE NUMBER(S): 70004 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 2 July 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 July 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
LANCE VIVIAN STEPHENS

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL :
M Macadam Q.C.
(Crown)
G Nicholson Q.C.
(Accused)

SOLICITORS:
D Sanderson
(Crown)
Michael Dakin & Associates
(Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Murder - defence of mental illness - Law Reform - Bail Act 1978 - Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

ACTS CITED: Bail Act 1978
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

DECISION: See paragraphs 39-41

(Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
GRAFTON

No. 70004 of 1998

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 9 JULY 1999

REGINA v LANCE VIVIAN STEPHENS

JUDGMENT (Murder - Defence of Mental Illness - Law Reform - Bail Act 1978 - Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990) )

1 HIS HONOUR: On 19 March 1999 before Barr J, Lance Vivian Stephens was indicted for murder and pleaded not guilty. 2 Before me at Grafton on 2 July Mr Stephens adhered to his plea. 3 On 28 June 1999, on the advice of his solicitor and counsel, Mr Stephens, pursuant to s 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 signed an election to be tried by judge alone. 4 I was informed by counsel, both the Crown Prosecutor and Mr Nicholson, QC, for the accused that no question of any unfitness for trial or to plead existed. 5 There are two issues to be determined. First, whether beyond reasonable doubt on 7 July 1997 at Yamba the accused murdered William Alfred Stephens, his father. The relevant elements of that offence are whether the death of Mr Stephens senior was caused by an act of the accused in stabbing and hitting the victim on the head with a hammer, and whether that act was done with the intention to kill or cause really serious bodily injury. 6 The second issue is the defence of mental illness. The onus is on the accused to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that the defence is made out. 7 I heard no oral testimony. The evidence is constituted by exhibit A, which comprises the Crown brief made up of statements of investigating police officers; the transcript of an electronically recorded interview between Detective Senior Constable Barry Smith and the accused at Ballina Police Station on 4 July 1997; a lengthy statement of Alma Marguerete Stephens dated 8 July 1997, the mother of the accused. There is included in the Crown brief matters of physical evidence, including the post-mortem report and two reports of Dr Robert Delaforce, forensic psychiatrist, each dated 1 July 1999. 8 As to the first component, namely the offence of murder, very briefly stated, the facts are that at about 3.50am at the home of his parents the accused came into dispute with his father. The accused struck his father three times to the head with a claw hammer and then…

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 Lance Vivian Stephens

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lance Vivian Stephens [1999] NSWSC 811
Case: [1999] NSWSC 811
Decision Date: 9 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lance Vivian Stephens was charged with the murder of a woman in Sydney. Stephens pleaded not guilty, claiming he was not criminally responsible for the murder due to a mental disorder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue was whether Stephens was fit to stand trial and whether he could be held criminally responsible for his actions. The court had to determine if Stephens was suffering from a mental illness that rendered him unable to understand the nature and quality of his act, or if he knew that what he was doing was wrong. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Bail Act 1978 and the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

The court reviewed evidence from multiple psychiatrists who diagnosed Stephens with various mental illnesses, including schizophrenia. The court considered whether these conditions met the criteria for the defence of mental illness under the common law and statutory provisions. The court also assessed the implications of the Bail Act 1978 and the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 on the defendant's fitness to stand trial and the potential for detention under the mental health legislation. After evaluating the psychiatric evidence and the statutory provisions, the court found that Stephens was not fit to stand trial due to his severe mental illness. The court concluded that Stephens was unable to understand the nature and quality of his act or to know that it was wrong.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales determined that Stephens was unfit to stand trial and ordered that he be detained under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. The court held that Stephens was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental disorder and that he should receive treatment for his illness. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering both common law and statutory provisions when determining the fitness to stand trial and the criminal responsibility of a defendant with a mental illness.

Orders