R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965

R v Fraser [2003] NSWSC 965

Although s 151(3) generally permits the Crown to choose whether to call evidence disproving substantial impairment before or after the defence evidence, the Crown had already adduced evidence, particularly from Professor Starmer, principally concerned with the accused's ingestion of drugs and its effect on his behaviour, an issue relating to the s 23A defence rather than the undisputed Crown case on intent. In those circumstances it was appropriate to direct the Crown to call Dr Skinner's rebuttal psychiatric evidence in its case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution on Three Counts of Murder / During Jury Trial; Determination of Whether the Crown Should Call Dr Skinner's Psychiatric Evidence in Its Case or in Reply
Outcome
The Crown was directed to call Dr Skinner's evidence in its case and not in reply.
Legal Topics
['substantial Impairment Defence Under S 23 a of the Crimes Act 1900' 'order of Crown Evidence' 'crown Evidence in Rebuttal' 'rule Against Splitting the Crown Case' 'direction Under S 151(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['substantial Impairment Defence Under S 23 a of the Crimes Act 1900' 'order of Crown Evidence' 'crown Evidence in Rebuttal' 'rule Against Splitting the Crown Case' 'direction Under S 151(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'expert Psychiatric Evidence']

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 Prosecution on Three Counts of Murder / During Jury Trial; Determination of Whether the Crown Should Call Dr Skinner's Psychiatric Evidence in Its Case or in Reply

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown should call Dr Skinner's evidence to rebut the accused's substantial impairment defence in the Crown case or in reply." 'Whether the common law principle against the Crown splitting its case prevented the Crown from calling rebuttal evidence in reply where the defence under s 23A was anticipated.' 'How s 151(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 affects the timing of evidence tendered to disprove a contention of substantial mental impairment.' 'Whether the Crown had already led evidence directed to rebutting the s 23A defence so that Dr Skinner should also be called in the Crown case.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although s 151(3) generally permits the Crown to choose whether to call evidence disproving substantial impairment before or after the defence evidence, the Crown had already adduced evidence, particularly from Professor Starmer, principally concerned with the accused's ingestion of drugs and its effect on his behaviour, an issue relating to the s 23A defence rather than the undisputed Crown case on intent. In those circumstances it was appropriate to direct the Crown to call Dr Skinner's rebuttal psychiatric evidence in its case.

Court Disposition

The Crown was directed to call Dr Skinner's evidence in its case and not in reply.

Orders

  • ['The Crown is directed to call evidence of Dr Skinner in its case and not in reply.']