R v Sheridan [2022] NSWSC 1669

R v Sheridan [2022] NSWSC 1669

Section 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 creates an exception or exclusion to the existence of a mental health impairment for the purpose of the s 28 defence. Because the facts in s 4(3)(a) and (b) are capable of proof, and requiring an accused to prove that the impairment was not caused solely by those matters would require proof of a difficult negative, the onus rests on the Crown to establish the facts engaging s 4(3). Those facts need only be proved on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, because they are not elements of the offence and there is no reason to require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on an Indictment Charging Murder / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Jury Directions Concerning the Defence of Mental Health Impairment
Outcome
Ruling made that the Crown bears the onus to prove facts relevant to s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 on the balance of probabilities.
Legal Topics
['defence of Mental Health Impairment' 'self Induced Intoxication' 'drug Induced Psychosis' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['defence of Mental Health Impairment' 'self Induced Intoxication' 'drug Induced Psychosis' 'onus and Standard of Proof' 'jury Directions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings on an Indictment Charging Murder / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Jury Directions Concerning the Defence of Mental Health Impairment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 provides an exclusion or exception to the defence of mental health impairment under s 28.' 'If s 4(3) provides an exclusion or exception, which party bears the onus of proving the facts giving rise to it.' 'What standard of proof applies to facts relevant to s 4(3).']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 creates an exception or exclusion to the existence of a mental health impairment for the purpose of the s 28 defence. Because the facts in s 4(3)(a) and (b) are capable of proof, and requiring an accused to prove that the impairment was not caused solely by those matters would require proof of a difficult negative, the onus rests on the Crown to establish the facts engaging s 4(3). Those facts need only be proved on the balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, because they are not elements of the offence and there is no reason to require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Ruling made that the Crown bears the onus to prove facts relevant to s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 on the balance of probabilities.

Orders

  • ['The jury will be directed along the lines of the ruling.']