The State of Western Australia v Chaytor - [2019] WASC 228

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- CHAYTOR [2019] WASC 228
CORAM:   JENKINS J
HEARD:   26 JUNE 2019
DELIVERED          :   2 JULY 2019
FILE NO/S:   INS 3 of 2019
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
NIGEL PAUL CHAYTOR
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Murder - Attempted murder - Insanity - Whether the accused was in a state of mental impairment - Whether the accused understood what he was doing - Whether accused lacked capacity to control his act/actions - Whether the accused lacked the capacity to know that he ought not do the relevant acts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA)
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA)
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant	:	Mr N R Cogin
Accused	:	Ms K A Shepherd

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused	:	Ms K A Shepherd

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Radford (1985) 20 A Crim R 388
Ramsay v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 642
The State of Western Australia v Herbert [2017] WASC 101
The State of Western Australia v Marotta [2018] WASC 329
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 118 A Crim R 78

JENKINS J:

The accused is charged on indictment that on 27 April 2018 at Kelmscott he:
(1)murdered Keith David Chaytor contrary to the Criminal Code (WA) (the Code) s 279; and
(2)attempted to unlawfully kill Estelle Marie Chaytor contrary to the Code s 283(1).[1]
The victims of the alleged offences are the parents of the accused.
[1] I will refer to this charge as the attempted murder charge.
On 6 May 2019 the accused entered pleas of not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.[2] The charges were then listed for trial.
[2] Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (CPA) s 126(1)(d), s 142.
On 14 May 2019 Corboy J ordered by consent that the accused be tried by judge alone,[3] and his trial took place before me on 26 June 2019.
[3] CPA s 118.
The parties submitted that the proper verdicts are not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind.[4] However I must determine the verdicts based on the evidence before the court.
[4] ts 12.
The judgment in a trial by judge alone must include the principles of law applied and the findings of fact relied on by the judge.[5]
[5] CPA s 120(2).
These are the principles of law which I have applied and the facts on which I rely for finding that the accused is not guilty of murder and not guilty of attempted murder on account of unsoundness of mind[6] because at the time he killed Mr Chaytor…

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 The State of Western Australia v Chaytor

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Chaytor [2019] WASC 228
Case: [2019] WASC 228
Decision Date: 2 JULY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a case of murder and attempted murder, where the accused, Chaytor, was on trial for the death of one person and the attempted murder of another. The trial was conducted by the Supreme Court of Western Australia, presided over by Justice Pullin. The central issue in the case was the determination of Chaytor's mental state at the time of the offence, specifically whether he was in a state of mental impairment that would result in his acquittal by reason of insanity.

The court had to consider whether Chaytor was in a state of mental impairment such that he did not know the nature and quality of his act or that he ought not to do it. The legal test for insanity in this jurisdiction, as established in the case of Porter, requires that the accused lacked the capacity to control their actions or lacked the capacity to know that they ought not to do the act. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defence to determine if the accused met this criteria.

Justice Pullin concluded that Chaytor did not meet the test for insanity. The evidence presented did not support the conclusion that Chaytor lacked the capacity to control his actions or to know that he ought not to do them at the time of the offence. Therefore, Chaytor was found to be legally accountable for his actions. The court found him guilty of murder and attempted murder. In delivering the sentence, Chaytor was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder and a concurrent sentence for the attempted murder.

Orders