Regina v Noyes - [1999] NSWSC 397

CITATION: REGINA v. NOYES [1999] NSWSC 397 revised - 30/04/99

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70011/98

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 27 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 April 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
Jeffrey William NOYES

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Hock
Accsed: M. Austin

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Accused: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Murder - Defence of mental illness - special verdict - order for detention.

ACTS CITED: Evidence Act
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

CASES CITED: Regina v. Gillett [1999] NSWSC 115
Regina v. Maxwell [1999] NSWSC 281
Regina v. Gavranovic [1999] NSWSC 205

DECISION: Special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness pursuant to s.38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. Order made under s.39.

NOYES -10-
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 70011 of 1998
GREG JAMES, J.
TUESDAY 27 APRIL 1999

REGINA v. JEFFREY WILLIAM NOYES
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
1 The accused, Jeffrey William Noyes, was indicted before me on a single count that on or about 16 November 1997 at Seven Hills in the State of New South Wales he murdered his mother Shirley Adelaide Noyes.
2 An election was made on the advice of his legal representatives for trial by Judge alone, which election was accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I was advised by his counsel, Mr. Austin, and by the Crown Prosecutor that no question of any unfitness for trial or to plead presently existed.
3 When the trial was called on, the accused pleaded not guilty before me. Mr. Austin, who appears for the accused, advised me that the only matter that arose at the trial for decision was as to a defence of mental illness and that no contest was made on the part of the defence with the propositions that the accused caused his mother's death with the requisite intent so that the offence of murder would have been committed except for the mental illness defence.
4 Mr. Austin explained that the plea of not guilty was to be understood as putting that matter only in issue. Thereafter, the accused made all necessary admissions as to the other necessary matters and made them pursuant to s.184 of the Evidence Act.
5 The Crown tendered in evidence a statement of facts cross-referenced to various statements provided to the police prior to committal. Those statements were also tendered. Those statements included various statements made by the accused at the time at which he was apprehended at his mother's home and made subsequently to the police. Those statements were relied on by both the prosecution and the defence, both of which urged me to receive them and to act on them.
6 Both the prosecution and the defence contended that those statements amounted, not only to admissions that the accused had with intent to kill, killed his mother in the very way in which the post mortem certificate of the forensic pathologist indicated she had been injured,…

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 Noyes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Noyes [1999] NSWSC 397
Case: [1999] NSWSC 397
Decision Date: 27 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Noyes involved a defendant accused of murdering his wife. The dispute centred on whether the defendant could be held criminally responsible for his actions due to a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant, Noyes, was fit to plead and whether he could be held criminally responsible for his actions if he was found to be suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence.

The court considered expert psychiatric evidence and determined that Noyes was fit to plead. However, the court also concluded that Noyes was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the murder, which impaired his ability to form the requisite intent for murder. As a result, the court found him not guilty by reason of mental illness and ordered his detention in a psychiatric facility. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the principles of justice and public safety in such cases.

The court's reasoning hinged on the balance between the principles of justice and the protection of society. It found that Noyes's mental illness at the time of the offence significantly impaired his ability to form the intent required for murder, thus absolving him of criminal responsibility. The court also considered the need to ensure public safety by ordering Noyes's detention in a psychiatric facility. The final orders included a finding of not guilty by reason of mental illness and an order for Noyes's detention in a psychiatric facility, ensuring that he receives appropriate treatment and supervision.

Orders