CITATION: Regina v Nguyen [2009] NSWSC 918 HEARING DATE(S): 24/08/09, 25/08/09, 26/08/09
JUDGMENT DATE :
10 September 2009JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J DECISION: Accused not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter on each count. CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - indictment charging two acts of murder - trial by judge alone - defence of mental illness - background evidence - psychiatric opinion - whether accused mentally ill under McNaughten rule or whether substantially impaired by an abnormality of the mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 - importance of letters left by accused. LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
R v McNaughten (1843) 8 ER 718PARTIES: Regina
Truong Thi NguyenFILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/19053001 COUNSEL: Ms M Cunneen SC - Crown
Mr RC Pontello - AccusedSOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Accused
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISIONHOEBEN J
Thursday 10 September 2009
JUDGMENT2008/19053001 – REGINA v Truong Thi NGUYEN
1 HIS HONOUR:
- Nature of Proceedings
The accused is indicted on a charge of murdering Joshua Bui on 19 February 2008 and of murdering Jade Bui on that same date. Pursuant to s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the accused elected to be tried by judge alone in relation to those charges.
2 Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to both charges.
3 The charges arise from the killing by the accused of her two children on 19 February 2008. Joshua was born in March 2003 and was therefore almost five at the time of his death. Jade was born in February 2005 and was almost three. Although the precise cause of their deaths could not be ascertained as a result of the post mortem, the most likely cause in each case was asphyxiation (i.e. suffocation). This was confirmed in histories given by the accused to psychiatrists who examined her.
4 There was little dispute about the facts. By consent the Crown case statement, medical reports from psychiatrists, statements from witnesses and a copy photograph were placed before the Court.
5 The basis for the accused’s plea of not guilty is mental illness under s 38 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. In other words, the accused relies upon mental illness in the McNaughten sense. The accused submits that the appropriate verdict is “not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental illness”. The Crown contends that this is a case to which s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 applies and that the accused is guilty of manslaughter in that at the time of the offences she was suffering substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind. Accordingly, the real issue litigated has been the mental condition of the accused at the time of the killing of her children.
6…
Continue reading Regina v Nguyen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Regina v Nguyen [2009] NSWSC 918
- Case
- [2009] NSWSC 918
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the accused could be held criminally responsible for the murders due to their mental state at the time of the offences. The court had to weigh the psychiatric evidence against the letters, which were considered highly relevant to understanding the accused's mental condition. The McNaughten rule, which requires the accused to be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong, was contrasted with the more recent criteria under section 23A, which considers substantial impairment by an abnormality of the mind. The court's task was to decide which legal standard applied, if any, to the facts of this case.
The court found that the accused was not mentally ill under the McNaughten rule, but was substantially impaired by an abnormality of the mind under section 23A. The judge carefully analysed the psychiatric evidence and the content of the letters, concluding that they demonstrated the accused's substantial impairment at the time of the murders. This conclusion was based on the understanding that the accused's mental condition affected their ability to control their actions, even though they might not have been completely incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their acts. The court ultimately determined that the accused was not criminally responsible for the murders due to their mental state.
Consequently, the court acquitted the accused of the charges of murder, based on the finding of substantial impairment under section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900. The importance of the letters left by the accused was recognised in reaching this decision, as they provided critical insights into the accused's mental condition at the relevant time.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.