Tasmania v Fowles - [2024] TASSC 68

[2024] TASSC 68

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	State of Tasmania v Fowles [2024] TASSC 68
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
FOWLES, Kurtis John
FILE NO:	89/2024
DELIVERED ON:	21 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Burnie
HEARING DATES:	15-18 October 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Jago J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure – Trial had before judge without jury – Generally – Accused charged with two counts of attempted murder contrary to ss 299 and 158 of the Criminal Code 1924 – Defence of insanity

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3164]

Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) ss 16, 299 and 158

R v Porter [1933] HCA 1, [1936] 55 CLR 182; R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, followed.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Prosecution: P Sherriff
Defence: G Richardson

Solicitors:

Prosecution: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 68
Number of paragraphs:	95

Serial No 68/2024

File No 89/2024

STATE OF TASMANIA v KURTIS JOHN FOWLES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JAGO J
21 November 2024

1 The accused is charged on indictment with two counts of attempting to commit murder, contrary to ss 299 and 158 of the Criminal Code Act 1924. He has entered a plea of not guilty to each charge. In accordance with an order made by me, pursuant to s 361AA of the Criminal Code, I conducted the trial as a single judge in place of a trial by jury.

Presumption of innocence and burden of proof

2             The accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Accordingly, he is presumed to be innocent of these crime unless and until I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3             In this case, it is accepted by both the prosecution and defence that, if the acts which constitute the crimes of attempted murder are proved, the question arises as to whether Mr Fowles is criminally responsible for those acts by reason of mental disease: Criminal Code, s 16.
4             He is presumed to have been of sound mind at the time he committed the relevant acts, unless the contrary is proved: Criminal Code, s 15. He bears the onus of establishing that he is not criminally responsible on the ground of insanity, although the onus may be discharged on the basis of evidence presented by the prosecution: Criminal Code, s 381. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities: Evidence Act 2001, s 141(2).

The charged crimes

5 The indictment alleges that the accused, on 29 July 2022, attempted to murder Oliver Christopher Triffett by stabbing him in the neck on two separate, but close in time, occasions. Both acts are alleged to have occurred in the early hours of the morning on 29 July 2022 at the home where both Mr Triffett and the accused lived. The evidence establishes Mr Triffett and the accused were both close friends…

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 Tasmania v Fowles

Details

AGLC: State of Tasmania v Fowles [2024] TASSC 68
Case: [2024] TASSC 68
Decision Date: 21 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Fowles, heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, involved the accused, Fowles, who was charged with two counts of attempted murder. The accused was tried before a judge without a jury, as per the statutory provisions. The crux of the matter was whether Fowles was guilty of the attempted murders as charged under sections 299 and 158 of the Criminal Code 1924, or if he could rely on the defence of insanity.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of insanity as a defence to the charged offences, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof required for such a defence. The court had to determine whether the prosecution successfully disproved the defence of insanity beyond reasonable doubt and whether the accused had indeed attempted to murder the victims as alleged.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defence of insanity was not substantiated. The court determined that the prosecution had successfully rebutted the defence by demonstrating that the accused was fully aware of the nature and quality of his acts and understood that they were wrong. The court held that the accused's actions were deliberate and intentional, thereby negating any claim of insanity. Consequently, the court found the accused guilty of the attempted murders as charged. The court ordered that the accused be remanded in custody pending sentencing.

Orders