NEW SOUTH WALES. Criminal LawEvidence-Confessions-Admissibility-SchizophrenicProcedure at
trial-Judge and jury-Functions-Crimes Act 1900-1929 (N.S.W.) (No. 40 of 1900-No. 2 of 1929), S. 410. SYDNEY,
A confession is not necessarily inadmissible as evidence upon a criminal trial because it appears that the prisoner making it was at the time of unsound mind and, by reason of his mental condition, exposed to the liability of confusing the products of his disordered imagination or fancy with fact.
The question of the admissibility of a confession, even though the question depends upon a decision on fact, is for the judge and it is a proper course for the judge in a criminal trial to hear evidence upon the voir dire in the absence of the jury. When the confession is admitted it is for the jury to determine the weight, if any, to be given to it.
Special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales refused.
APPLICATION for special leave to appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.
Boyd Sinclair, who was born on 13th September 1918, was, in March 1936, committed for trial on a charge of feloniously and maliciously murdering one John Thomas Smillie at Croydon, New South Wales, on 24th September 1935. A few days after he had been committed for trial Sinclair was found to be suffering from schizophrenia and was certified as insane. Upon being SO certified Sinclair was transferred from the State Penitentiary, Long Bay, Sydney, to the Criminal Lunatic Asylum, Parramatta.
Upon an inquiry held under the Lunacy (Amendment) Act 1946 (N.S.W.) a jury found that Sinclair was fit to plead and he was accordingly put upon his trial on the charge of murder. He pleaded not guilty to the charge on the ground that he did not commit the murder and, although not taken on Sinclair's behalf as a ground of defence, the trial judge (Owen J.) also put to the jury the question whether Sinclair was insane at the time of the murder. After hearing evidence on the voir dire the trial judge held that certain confessions made by Sinclair were admissible and admitted them.
The jury convicted Sinclair of the murder and, under S. 127 of the Child Welfare Act 1939 (N.S.W.), he was sentenced to imprison- ment for life with hard labour.
An appeal made on behalf of Sinclair against that conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales whereupon an application was made on his behalf to the High Court for special leave to appeal to that Court against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the Court should have held that evidence of the confessions and/or state- ments of Sinclair was inadmissible on the ground that at the time they were made Sinclair was insane and unable to distinguish fact from fancy.
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 Sinclair v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sinclair v The King [1946] HCA 55
Case
[1946] HCA 55
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant, Boyd Sinclair, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The central issue on appeal was the admissibility of confessions made by Sinclair, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia and had been certified as insane prior to his trial, though later found fit to plead.
The legal questions before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting the confessions into evidence, given Sinclair's mental condition at the time they were made, and whether the admissibility of such confessions depended on a standard of mental soundness that Sinclair did not meet. The applicant argued that confessions made by a person unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy, due to mental unsoundness, should be inadmissible due to their potential unreliability, drawing an analogy to the rule excluding involuntary confessions.
The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, affirmed that the question of admissibility of evidence, including confessions, is for the judge. The Court held that a confession is not automatically inadmissible simply because the maker was of unsound mind and might have confused imagination with fact. While the judge must determine admissibility, often on a voir dire, it is for the jury to determine the weight to be given to admitted evidence. The Court found that the evidence did not establish that Sinclair's mental condition rendered his confessions so untrustworthy as to warrant exclusion, particularly as the confessions themselves were coherent and detailed, and the trial judge had properly considered the evidence before admitting them for the jury's consideration.