Regina v Rea - [2000] NSWSC 588

CITATION: REGINA v. REA [2000] NSWSC 588 revised - 20/07/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70021 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 28 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 June 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
REA, Brett

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: W. Robinson, QC.
Accused: T. Evers (Sol.)

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

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - trial - judge alone - mental illness - special verdict

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Mental Health Act 1990

CASES CITED: Fiori [2000] NSWSC 73

DECISION: Not guilty by reason of mental illness

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70021 of 2000

GREG JAMES, J.

WEDNESDAY 28 JUNE 2000

REGINA v. BRETT REA
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused stands charged that on a day between 5 July 1999 and 8 July 1999 at Point Clare in the State of New South Wales he murdered his father, Allen Kevin Rea. To that charge he has pleaded not guilty. In his plea he indicated a basis for his lack of guilt, that is, he asserted he was not guilty by reason of mental illness. 2 An election for trial by judge alone signed by the accused and witnessed, attesting to advice by his solicitor, accepted by the Director of Public Prosecutions as confirmed by the learned Crown Prosecutor before me, has been filed in accordance with the provisions of s.32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. 3 There has been tendered to me and admitted by consent and without any factual challenge two psychiatric reports, they being, firstly, the report of Dr. William Lucas of 1 March 2000; secondly, the report of Dr. Olav Nielssen of 24 May 2000. 4 Upon a reading of those reports it is clear that no question arises as to the fitness of this accused to make that election, or as to his competence or fitness to plead and to take his trial. 5 Both parties have sought that the trial proceed before me as a judge only trial. 6 Prior to the trial coming on for hearing and by consent, the parties have provided to me material which included a copy of the proposed indictment and the reports of the psychiatrists, to which I have referred. In addition, referred to in those reports and provided as part of the committal papers, was the ERISP between police and the accused shortly following his apprehension some time after the death. I have had an opportunity to read all of that material and have done so. I have done so having been informed that no issues of fact or controversy over the facts arises in respect of this matter and it would be the common submission of both the Crown and the defence that, at the time of the commission of the acts causing the death charged, the accused was suffering from mental illness such that the relevant provisions of 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 Rea

Details

AGLC: Regina v Rea [2000] NSWSC 588
Case: [2000] NSWSC 588
Decision Date: 28 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a charge of murder against Rea, who had been tried by a judge sitting alone in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The issue was whether Rea had the requisite mental capacity to form the intent to kill, which is a necessary element for a conviction of murder. The defence argued that Rea was suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to understand the nature of his actions or that they were wrong. The prosecution contended that Rea was fully aware of his actions and that they were wrong, and therefore he was fit to be tried and convicted of murder.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in assessing Rea's mental capacity and whether the special verdict of manslaughter on the ground of mental illness was appropriate. The court needed to consider the evidence presented regarding Rea's mental state at the time of the offence and whether it supported a finding that he lacked the capacity to form the intent to kill. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the issue of mental illness and whether the verdict was supported by the evidence.

In its decision, the court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in assessing Rea's mental capacity. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding that Rea lacked the capacity to form the intent to kill. The court held that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the issue of mental illness and that the verdict of manslaughter on the ground of mental illness was not supported by the evidence. The court concluded that Rea was fit to be tried and convicted of murder and quashed the verdict of manslaughter. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial.

Orders