R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1343

R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1343

The application was refused because there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find that the Crown had rebutted the presumption of doli incapax, including evidence about the circumstances at Big Rock, the accused's utterances and alleged concealment, teachers' evidence about his behaviour, and psychiatric evidence. Since such evidence existed, it was for the jury, not the trial judge, to determine the factual issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application at the End of the Crown Case for a Direction That the Jury Acquit the Accused
Outcome
Application for a direction that the jury acquit the accused refused.
Legal Topics
['juvenile Accused' 'doli Incapax' 'legal Capacity' 'directed Acquittal' 'role of Jury']
['criminal Law'] ['juvenile Accused' 'doli Incapax' 'legal Capacity' 'directed Acquittal' 'role of Jury']

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 Trial / Application at the End of the Crown Case for a Direction That the Jury Acquit the Accused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown had failed to rebut the presumption of doli incapax in respect of the accused.' 'Whether the issue of rebutting doli incapax was a matter for the trial judge alone or for the jury where evidence existed.' 'Whether there was evidence on which a properly instructed jury could conclude that the accused knew his conduct was seriously wrong.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because there was evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find that the Crown had rebutted the presumption of doli incapax, including evidence about the circumstances at Big Rock, the accused's utterances and alleged concealment, teachers' evidence about his behaviour, and psychiatric evidence. Since such evidence existed, it was for the jury, not the trial judge, to determine the factual issue.

Court Disposition

Application for a direction that the jury acquit the accused refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused']