Criminal law and procedure - Insanity - Directions to jury when insanity in issue - Whether issue of insanity should be considered by jury before issue of intent
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Murder - Direction that applicant serve minimum term of 12 years before becoming eligible for parole - Applicant presenting significant risk of re-offending - Minimum term not excessive
KENNEDY J: The facts in this case are set out in other judgments, and it is not necessary for me to repeat them. It is sufficient for the present purposes to indicate that the jury found the applicant not guilty of wilful murder, but guilty of murder. It had been conceded by the applicant that he had killed the deceased. He claimed, however, that he was of unsound mind at the time of the killing. The issue for determination in relation to the applicant's appeal against his conviction is whether the learned Chief Justice correctly directed the jury that, once they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had killed the deceased, they should then consider whether, when the accused did the act which caused the death of the deceased, he was not criminally responsible for that act by reason of insanity, and that the defence of insanity should be considered by them before they considered what was the accused's specific intention at the material time.
The history of the law of insanity in relation to the criminal law was discussed by Sir Owen Dixon in his well known paper, "A Legacy of Hadfield", M'Naghten and Maclean (1957)…
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 Ward v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ward v The Queen [2000] WASCA 413
Case
[2000] WASCA 413
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved an appeal against the sentence of a person convicted of murder. The appellant, Ward, had killed a person in circumstances that led to a murder conviction. The primary issue for the court was the adequacy of the directions given to the jury regarding the consideration of the insanity defence and the appropriateness of the minimum term imposed for parole eligibility. The court was tasked with determining whether the jury should consider the insanity defence before addressing the issue of intent and whether the minimum term imposed was excessive.
The court examined whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury to consider the insanity defence before addressing intent. The court held that the trial judge did not err in this regard, as the insanity defence was properly framed and considered by the jury. The court also considered the imposition of a minimum term of 12 years before parole eligibility, which was based on the significant risk of re-offending presented by the appellant. The court found that the minimum term was not excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the risk of re-offending.
In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that the minimum term imposed was not excessive. The court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment and sentence.