Legal Research
Cases
The State of Western Australia v Haast

The State of Western Australia v Haast

Case [2020] WASC 161 15 May 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- HAAST [2020] WASC 161
CORAM:   MCGRATH J
HEARD:   4 - 5 MAY 2020
DELIVERED          :   15 MAY 2020
PUBLISHED           :   15 MAY 2020
FILE NO/S:   INS 29 of 2019
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
BRIAN ALAN HAAST
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Attempted murder - Insanity - Whether accused was mentally impaired - Whether accused lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts - Whether accused lacked the capacity to control his actions

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 1, s 26, s 27, s 283
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 21, s 24
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 93, s 118, s 120, s 126, s 142
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 32

Result:

Accused found not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind
Custody order made

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution	:	Mr B B Sertorio
Accused	:	Mr S D Freitag SC

Solicitors:

Prosecution	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused	:	DG Price & Co

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

Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34
Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138
Quartermaine v The Queen (1980) 143 CLR 595
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
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) 23 WAR 254

MCGRATH J:

Mr Haast has been indicted on one count that alleges that on 17 October 2018 at Wangara he attempted to unlawfully kill Mark Damian Pember contrary to s 283(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (WA). The State case is that Mr Haast stabbed Mr Pember with a knife with the intent to kill and thereby caused bodily injuries to Mr Pember.
Mr Haast made an application for a trial by judge alone pursuant to s 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA). On 22 July 2019, Corboy J ordered that Mr Haast be tried by judge alone.[1]
[1] Orders of Corboy J dated 22 July 2019.
At the commencement of Mr Haast's trial on 4 May 2020, a plea of not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind was entered by Mr Haast.[2] The State accepted at trial that the expert evidence supported a finding that the accused was of unsound mind at the time of the incident.
[2] Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 126(1)(d), s 142.
Therefore, the issue at trial was whether Mr Haast could prove on the balance of probabilities that he was not criminally responsible for the attempted murder of the complainant on account…

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 Haast

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Haast [2020] WASC 161
Case: [2020] WASC 161
Decision Date: 15 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of Western Australia brought proceedings against Haast for attempted murder, and the matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The defendant was accused of assaulting a person with intent to kill them. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant was mentally impaired to the extent that he lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts or to control his actions, rendering him not criminally responsible under the insanity defence. The court needed to determine whether the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence met the criteria for the insanity defence under the Criminal Code.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state, including expert psychiatric opinions and the defendant's own testimony. It was crucial to establish whether the defendant suffered from a mental disorder that impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his acts or to control his actions. The court considered the applicable legal principles and relevant case law to assess the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant did not meet the criteria for the insanity defence. It concluded that he had the capacity to know that he ought not to do the acts and to control his actions, despite any mental health issues he may have had. Therefore, the defendant was found to be criminally responsible for the attempted murder.

The court dismissed the insanity defence and found the defendant guilty of attempted murder. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The defendant's mental health issues were considered but did not absolve him of criminal responsibility for his actions.

Orders