Regina v Shew - [2002] NSWSC 724

CITATION: REGINA v. SHEW [2002] NSWSC 724

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70043 of 2002

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 15 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 15 August 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
SHEW, David Michael

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Conlon
App: D.J. Humphreys (Sol.)

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: Legal Aid Commission

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - murder - judge only trial - mental illness defence.

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

CASES CITED: M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182

DECISION: As to each charge on the indictment, I find the accused not guilty by reason of mental illness. I order that he be detained at the Long Bay Prison Hospital or such other place as may, from time to time, be prescribed by the process of law, until released by due process of law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 15 AUGUST 2002

No. 70043 of 2002

REGINA v. DAVID MICHAEL SHEW

JUDGMENT
(Trial by judge without a jury)

1 HIS HONOUR: From time to time cases such as this come before this court. They are immensely tragic, not only for the family and the loved ones of those who have been deprived of the society of their relatives but immensely tragic also for an accused who suffers from some such illness as deprives that person, in law, of the understanding we regard in a civilized society as necessary before a person becomes amenable to punishment for their conduct.

2 On a murder trial such as this, it is necessary to relive what happened in these appallingly tragic circumstances to the deceased and to relive the appalling conduct of the accused when he killed them. It is important to recognize that the court is not insensitive to the tragedy that has affected those that have been left and which has affected and will affect the accused for the rest of his life, as that tragedy will affect the members of the family and the loved ones of the deceased for the rest of theirs.

3 I commence these reasons with those words so that it will be understood that the recognition by both the prosecution and the defence that the accused did perform the acts causing the deaths and did have, at the time of the acts causing death, that mental condition and did perform those acts with that mental condition such as would otherwise make him liable for the offence of murder but for the fact also recognised, after proper investigation by the Crown, that although the accused had that mental condition and did those acts he was at the time suffering from mental illness.

4 This case, it appears to me, having seen the extent of the investigation of whether the accused was at the time affected by mental illness, has been conducted by those police investigating those medical practitioners and those involved…

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 Shew

Details

AGLC: Regina v Shew [2002] NSWSC 724
Case: [2002] NSWSC 724
Decision Date: 15 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Shew was a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria, which involved a dispute over the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence. The defendant, Shew, was charged with murder, and he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental illness. The matter proceeded to a judge-only trial, where the question of Shew's mental state at the time of the alleged murder was to be determined.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Shew was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which would render him not guilty of murder by reason of insanity. The court was required to consider the evidence presented regarding Shew's mental state and determine whether it was sufficient to establish that he lacked the capacity to form the intent required for murder.

The court, in its judgment, concluded that Shew was indeed suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, which significantly impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to appreciate that it was wrong. The court found that Shew's mental illness met the threshold for the insanity defence under the relevant statutory provisions. Consequently, the court acquitted Shew of the charge of murder and ordered that he be detained in a mental health facility. The decision underscored the importance of the insanity defence in criminal law and the need for a thorough examination of the defendant's mental state.

Orders