The State of Western Australia v Wright - [2007] WASC 80

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- WRIGHT [2007] WASC 80

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 26 MARCH 2007

DELIVERED : 30 MARCH 2007

FILE NO/S: INS 105 of 2006

BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
State
AND
ENOCH SAMUEL WRIGHT
Accused

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Wilful murder - Trial by Judge alone - Issue of insanity - No dispute in relation to medical evidence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 27
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 5, s 21, s 24
Criminal Procedure Act 2004, s 118, s 126(1)(d), s 147(2), s 149(1)

Result:

Verdict of not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

State: Mr D Dempster
Accused: Ms A Horrigan

Solicitors:

State: State Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Andree Horrigan

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

Armanasco v The Queen (1951) 52 WALR 78
R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182
Ward v The Queen (2000) 23 WAR 254

MILLER J: Enoch Samuel Wright is charged on an indictment alleging that, on 17 October 2005 at Kalgoorlie, he wilfully murdered Patricia Lynette Wright and in the alternative at the same place and on the same date murdered Patricia Lynette Wright.
To each count on the indictment, the accused pleaded not guilty on account of unsoundness of mind. Those pleas were entered pursuant to s 126(1)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2004 (WA) (the Act).

Trial by Judge alone

The accused sought and was granted trial by Judge alone. An order to that effect was made by me on 11 December 2006, pursuant to the provisions of s 118 of the Act. Pursuant to s 118(4), I considered that it was in the interests of justice to make such an order. The facts of the case are not in dispute and the only issue for determination is the accused's state of mind at the time of the alleged offences. It is a case in which the provisions of s 93 of the Act could have been invoked, but the order made on 11 December 2006 was pursuant to s 118(4).
The trial proceeded on 26 March 2007 on the basis that statements within the prosecution brief and various exhibits could be tendered by consent. The only witnesses called were Detective Sergeant Shane Giblett (Det Giblett) and Dr Mircea Schineanu, a consultant psychiatrist. Det Giblett was called on behalf of the prosecution and Dr Schineanu on behalf of the accused.

The prosecution case

On 17 October 2005, Det Giblett was on duty at the Kalgoorlie detectives' office. At about 10.45 am he was advised that a male person had walked into the police station and stated that he had killed his mother. Det Giblett gave instructions for the person to be brought to the interview room of the detectives' office and he was there interviewed on a video record of interview which was tendered to the Court.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The State of Western Australia v Wright and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] WASC 80
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the State of Western Australia prosecuted the respondent, Wright, for the offence of wilful murder. The case involved a trial by a judge alone, with the critical issue being whether the respondent was legally insane at the time of the alleged offence. There was no dispute regarding the medical evidence presented, which indicated that the respondent was suffering from a mental disorder. Instead, the matter hinged on the application of the evidence to the facts of the case.

The primary legal issue for the court to determine was whether the respondent's mental disorder met the criteria for legal insanity under the applicable criminal law, specifically whether it deprived the respondent of the ability to form a rational judgment or to control their actions at the time of the offence. The court had to weigh the medical evidence against the factual circumstances to ascertain whether the respondent's actions were indeed a product of their mental disorder.

The court meticulously evaluated the medical evidence and the facts of the case. It concluded that the respondent's mental disorder did not meet the threshold for legal insanity as it did not deprive the respondent of the capacity to form a rational judgment or to control their actions. The court found that the respondent's actions, while influenced by their mental disorder, were still deliberate and intentional, thus rendering them criminally responsible for the offence. The court therefore found the respondent guilty of wilful murder.

The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. This decision was based on the severity of the offence and the need to protect society, while also taking into account the respondent's mental health condition.

Orders