Legal Research
Cases
The State of Western Australia v Ihalahewa

The State of Western Australia v Ihalahewa

Case [2020] WASC 386 26 October 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- IHALAHEWA [2020] WASC 386
CORAM:   FIANNACA J
HEARD:   7 - 9 SEPTEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   22 OCTOBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   26 OCTOBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   INS 71 of 2019
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution
AND
UPENDRA PATHMASRI IHALAHEWA
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Trial by judge alone – Murder – Insanity – Whether accused was mentally impaired – Whether accused lacked the capacity to know he ought not do the act

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA)
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA)
Evidence Act 1906 (WA)

Result:

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

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Prosecution	:	R F Owen
Accused	:	A Fedele

Solicitors:

Prosecution	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused	:	Legal Aid WA

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

Cooley v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 160
Evans v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 34
Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; (1994) 179 CLR 500
Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
R v Radford (1985) 20 A Crim R 388
Ramsay v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 642
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
The State of Western Australia v Jones [2018] WASC 395
The State of Western Australia v Knock [2020] WASC 246
The State of Western Australia v Marotta [2018] WASC 329
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254

Table of Contents

Charge and history of the proceedings

Accused's plea and formal admissions

Agreed facts and documentary evidence

Statutory requirements in relation to trials by judge alone

Principles of law applicable in this case

Issues to be determined

Evidence

Admissibility of evidence of the accused's statements other than in the EROI

Facts relevant to the alleged offence

Accused's presentation and accounts to medical staff shortly after the incident

Psychiatric evidence

Addresses

Findings

Conclusion

Orders

FIANNACA J:

Charge and history of the proceedings

Upendra Pathmasri Ihalahewa (the accused) has been charged on indictment that on 3 February 2019, at Balga, he murdered Darshika Nilmini Kudaligama Withana. It is alleged that he killed Ms Withana, his wife, by stabbing her with a large kitchen knife. He did so in the home they shared in Balga.
The prosecution case is that the accused killed Ms Withana[1] in a brutal and persistent attack. It is alleged the accused inflicted six penetrating stab wounds upon the deceased. Some of the wounds could not have been made without considerable force. The most…

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 Ihalahewa

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Ihalahewa [2020] WASC 386
Case: [2020] WASC 386
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The State of Western Australia brought an action against Ihalahewa in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, seeking a conviction for murder. The central issue was whether Ihalahewa, the accused, was mentally impaired to the extent that he could not understand the nature and quality of his act or that he was doing something he ought not to do. The accused was alleged to have killed his wife, and the primary concern was whether his mental state at the time of the offence could be considered insanity.

The court had to determine whether the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect that impaired his ability to know the wrongfulness of his act. This involved an examination of medical evidence and expert testimonies regarding Ihalahewa's mental health. The court needed to establish if the accused was able to comprehend the nature and quality of his actions or if he could distinguish right from wrong.

The court found that the accused suffered from a significant mental impairment, which affected his ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions. The evidence indicated that Ihalahewa had a severe mental disorder that impaired his cognitive functions, leading to a diminished capacity to appreciate the nature and consequences of his actions. The court concluded that the accused was not criminally responsible for the murder due to his insanity. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused of murder and ordered that he be detained in a mental health facility.

Orders