Legal Research
Cases
The State of Western Australia v Smith

The State of Western Australia v Smith

Case [2020] WASC 282 31 July 2020

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- SMITH [2020] WASC 282
CORAM:   FIANNACA J
HEARD:   29 JUNE - 1 JULY 2020
DELIVERED          :   31 JULY 2020
FILE NO/S:   INS 62 of 2019
BETWEEN:   THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND
SHANNON SCOTT WESTERMAN SMITH
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Trial by judge alone - Murder - Insanity - Whether accused was mentally impaired - Whether accused lacked the capacity to know that she ought not to 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:

Applicant	:	Mr J G Nicholls
Accused	:	Ms K A Shepherd & Ms A M Taylor

Solicitors:

Applicant	:	Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Accused	:	Kate King Legal

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 Golightly (1977) WAR 401
R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v Hope [1909] VLR 149
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
R v Woodcock (1789) 1 Leach 500; 168 ER 352
Stapleton v The Queen [1952] HCA 56; (1952) 86 CLR 358
T (a Child) v The Queen (1998) 20 WAR 130
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
Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413; (2000) 23 WAR 254

FIANNACA J:

The charge and history of the proceedings

Shannon Scott Westerman Smith (the accused) has been charged on indictment that on 6 October 2018, at Rockingham, he murdered Jacqueline Lynn Francis. It is alleged that he killed Ms Francis by inflicting a fatal wound to her neck. Ms Francis had been a mental health support worker for the accused. On 6 October 2018 she visited the accused because she was concerned that his mental health was deteriorating. The accused is alleged to have killed Ms Francis as she left his home.[1]
[1] Henceforth, as is customary, I will refer to Ms Francis as 'the deceased'. No disrespect is intended to the memory of Ms Francis or to her family by the use of that formal description.
On 12 January 2020, the accused applied for a trial by judge alone pursuant…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: The State of Western Australia v Smith [2020] WASC 282
Case: [2020] WASC 282
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The State of Western Australia v Smith, the accused, Smith, was charged with the murder of her partner. The dispute centred around whether Smith was mentally impaired at the time of the offence, which would negate her criminal responsibility. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether Smith was mentally impaired and, if so, whether this impairment was such that she lacked the capacity to know that she ought not to do the act. The court needed to determine if Smith was fit to be tried and, if so, whether she could be held criminally liable for the murder.

The court considered evidence from medical experts, who provided differing opinions on Smith's mental state at the time of the offence. The prosecution argued that Smith's actions were premeditated and therefore demonstrated she was not mentally impaired. The defence contended that Smith suffered from a severe mental disorder that impaired her ability to understand the nature and quality of her act or to know that it was wrong. After weighing the evidence, the court found that Smith was indeed mentally impaired and lacked the requisite capacity to know that she ought not to do the act. Consequently, the court determined that Smith was not criminally liable for the murder.

The court's decision was based on the principle that a person who is mentally impaired and lacks the capacity to understand the nature and quality of their act or to know that it is wrong cannot be held criminally responsible. Given the evidence presented, the court concluded that Smith's mental impairment was sufficient to absolve her of criminal responsibility. As a result, Smith was acquitted of murder. The final orders included the formal recording of Smith's acquittal and the direction for her release from custody.

Orders