The State of Western Australia v PETERSEN-CROFTS - [2021] WASC 47

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- PETERSEN-CROFTS [2021] WASC 47
CORAM:   QUINLAN CJ
HEARD:   12 & 15 FEBRUARY 2021
DELIVERED          :   15 FEBRUARY 2021
PUBLISHED           :   24 FEBRUARY 2021
FILE NO/S:   INS 94 of 2019
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Prosecution

AND

TEANCUM VERNON PETERSEN-CROFTS
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Trial by judge alone – Murder – Insanity – Whether accused was mentally impaired – Whether accused lacked capacity to control actions – Whether accused lacked the capacity to know that he ought not to do the act – Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 27
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 20, s 24, s 25, s 26, s 33
Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA), s 93, s 149
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	:	P M Usher
Accused	:	K J Farley SC

Solicitors:

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

Cases referred to in decision:

Hone v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 283; (2007) 179 A Crim R 138
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
The State of Western Australia v Ihalahewa [2020] WASCA 386
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254

QUINLAN CJ:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 15 February 2021 and has been edited from the transcript to include, in endnotes, references to relevant law and evidence.)

Teancum Vernon Petersen‑Crofts, you have been charged that on 15 July 2018 at Ellenbrook, you murdered Bella Michelle Petersen, Michelle Gene Petersen and Rua Leslie Tukatahi Petersen‑Tauranga.
You pleaded not guilty to each charge on the ground of unsoundness of mind.[1]
As I advised you at the start of this trial, there are a number of important principles of law that applied to this trial and which apply to every trial. You are presumed innocent of the charges that have been brought against you and the burden of proving your guilt is on the State.
Even though the charges have been heard together, it is important for me to remember that there are three separate charges and I must reach a separate verdict in relation to each charge based on the evidence relating to each charge. The standard of proof that the State must achieve is proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the State does not prove the charges I must find you not guilty.
Also in this case, if the State proves the elements of murder other than the element of intent beyond reasonable doubt,[2] I must decide whether you are not guilty by reason of unsoundness of mind. The onus is on you to prove that defence on the balance of probabilities.[3]
In deciding your case I have not let emotions or sympathy or prejudice play any part in my…

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 PETERSEN-CROFTS

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v PETERSEN-CROFTS [2021] WASC 47
Case: [2021] WASC 47
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Western Australia involved the defendant, Teancum Vernon Petersen-Crofts, who was charged with the murder of three family members. The defendant pleaded not guilty, claiming unsoundness of mind. The court had to decide whether the defendant was criminally responsible for the murders due to his mental state at the time of the incident. The legal issues included whether the defendant was mentally impaired and whether he lacked the capacity to control his actions or to know that his actions were wrong. The court considered the defendant's long-standing schizophrenia, which was confirmed by two expert psychiatrists, and whether this mental illness deprived him of the capacity to control his actions and to know that what he was doing was wrong. The court found that the defendant was indeed suffering from schizophrenia and that his mental illness deprived him of the capacity to control his actions and to know that what he was doing was wrong. Therefore, the court found him not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind. A custody order was made under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996, which requires the defendant to be detained until released by an order of the Governor.

Orders