Legal Research
Cases
RM v The Queen

RM v The Queen

Case [2012] NSWCCA 35 19 March 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RM v R [2012] NSWCCA 35
Hearing dates: 30 January 2012
Decision date: 19 March 2012
Before: Whealy JA at [1]
R.S. Hulme J at [92]
Hidden J at [94]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted on the limited basis as to whether stay should be granted in relation to the mental illness issue.
(2) In relation to that issue, the appeal is allowed and the matter remitted to the trial judge to consider afresh whether a stay should be granted.
(3) Otherwise, in relation to all other issues, leave is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal - Special Hearing - s 19 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 - interlocutory judgment refusing to permanently stay criminal proceedings - whether an intellectually handicapped accused knew right from wrong at the material time - whether substantial delay had resulted in unfairness to the accused in adducing evidence - a permanent stay is only to be granted in the extreme case where the apprehended defect is of such a nature that nothing a trial judge can do in the conduct of the trial can relieve against its unfair consequences.
Legislation Cited: - Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) - s 5F(3)(a)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) - s 19
Cases Cited: - Agoston v R [2008] NSWCCA 116
- Barton v R (1980) 147 CLR 75
- Dupas v R (2010) 241 CLR 237
- Jago v District Court of New South Wales & Ors (1989) 168 CLR 23
- R v Edwards (2009) 83 ALJR 717
- R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592
- R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
- R v RWO [2002] NSWCCA 133
- R v WRC (2003) 59 NSWLR 273
- Reg v S [1979] 2 NSWLR 1
- Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358
- Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: RM (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M.J. McAuley (Appellant)
Ms J.R. Dwyer (Crown)
Solicitors:
McAuley Hawach Lawyers (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2009/228256
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2011-10-14 00:00:00

Before:

Woodburne SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/228256

Judgment

WHEALY JA : This is an application for leave to appeal brought pursuant to s 5F(3)(a) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against an interlocutory judgment of her Honour Judge Woodburne SC (I shall for convenience refer to her Honour as "the trial judge" notwithstanding that the proceedings before her, as will be seen, were not a trial) refusing to permanently stay certain criminal proceedings. The application for a permanent stay was made on behalf of the applicant at the conclusion of the evidence on a special hearing without a jury, ordered pursuant to s 19 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW). The special hearing canvassed evidence in support of allegations that the applicant had sexually assaulted his young female cousin on repeated occasions between 1989 and 1992…

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 RM v The Queen

Details

AGLC: RM v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 35
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 35
Decision Date: 19 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, RM, was convicted of murder and was appealing against the interlocutory judgment that refused to permanently stay the criminal proceedings against them. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant, who had an intellectual disability, knew the nature and quality of their act and whether it was wrong at the time of the offence. The court was also required to determine whether the substantial delay in the proceedings had caused unfairness to the appellant in adducing evidence.

The court examined the evidence and submissions provided by both parties and considered the relevant legal principles. It held that the appellant's intellectual disability did not necessarily mean that they were incapable of understanding the nature and quality of their act or that it was wrong. The court found that the appellant had the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the offence. Furthermore, the court held that the delay in the proceedings did not result in unfairness to the appellant in adducing evidence. The court found that the appellant had not shown that the delay had prejudiced their ability to present a defence.

The court concluded that a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings was only to be granted in extreme cases where the apprehended defect was of such a nature that nothing a trial judge could do in the conduct of the trial could relieve against its unfair consequences. The court held that the appellant's intellectual disability did not fall within this category. Therefore, the interlocutory judgment refusing to permanently stay the criminal proceedings was affirmed.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the interlocutory judgment of the lower court. The criminal proceedings against the appellant will continue as scheduled. The appellant has the right to appeal against the final judgment if they are found guilty.

Orders