R v Miller [2022] NSWSC 802

R v Miller [2022] NSWSC 802

Section 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) is not confined, as a matter of law, to cases where the accused was intoxicated by drugs at the time of the act, and it is not displaced merely because s 4(2) is satisfied. On the evidence, whether the accused had a mental health impairment, including whether any impairment was caused solely by the temporary effect of ingesting a substance, was for the jury. Because s 4(3) operates as an exception asserted by the Crown, the Crown bears the onus of establishing the facts enlivening it on the balance of probabilities. The evidence was also capable of supporting a reasonable doubt about whether the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Murder; Procedural Ruling on Jury Directions / After Evidence Concluded, Before Jury Directions
Outcome
Defences under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) and s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) left to the jury.
Legal Topics
['mental Health Impairment Defence' 'self Defence With Excessive Force' 'drug Induced Psychosis' 'onus of Proof' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['mental Health Impairment Defence' 'self Defence With Excessive Force' 'drug Induced Psychosis' 'onus 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 Trial for Murder; Procedural Ruling on Jury Directions / After Evidence Concluded, Before Jury Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) could apply where the accused was not intoxicated at the time but the Crown alleged a temporary substance induced psychosis caused solely by ingesting drugs.' 'Whether s 4(3) is an exception to the definition of mental health impairment and which party bears the onus of establishing its operation.' 'Whether self-defence with excessive force under s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) should be left to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 4(3) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) is not confined, as a matter of law, to cases where the accused was intoxicated by drugs at the time of the act, and it is not displaced merely because s 4(2) is satisfied. On the evidence, whether the accused had a mental health impairment, including whether any impairment was caused solely by the temporary effect of ingesting a substance, was for the jury. Because s 4(3) operates as an exception asserted by the Crown, the Crown bears the onus of establishing the facts enlivening it on the balance of probabilities. The evidence was also capable of supporting a reasonable doubt about whether the...

Court Disposition

Defences under s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) and s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) left to the jury.

Orders

  • ['The jury was not to be directed that s 4(3) had no application.' 'The issue whether the accused had a mental health impairment was left to the jury.' 'Self-defence with excessive force was left to the jury.']