Donyadideh, A.A. v The Queen [1995] FCA 572

Donyadideh, A.A. v The Queen [1995] FCA 572

All four psychiatrists accepted at least the possibility that the appellant was in a state of automatism during the relevant events. That possibility was inconsistent with proof beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to perform the actions charged or that his will controlled his actions. Accordingly there was no expert opinion capable of satisfactorily sustaining the jury's verdicts, which were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions on Counts 1, 3 and 5 From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentence set aside; verdicts of not guilty entered on counts 1, 3 and 5.
Legal Topics
['automatism' 'dissociation' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'damage to Property' 'attack on an Internationally Protected Person']
['criminal Law'] ['automatism' 'dissociation' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'unsafe and Unsatisfactory Verdict' 'burden of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt' 'damage to Property' 'attack on an Internationally Protected Person']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions on Counts 1, 3 and 5 From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was not in a condition of automatism or dissociation such that his will controlled his actions during the Embassy incident.' "Whether the jury's verdicts on counts 1, 3 and 5 were against the evidence, unsafe and unsatisfactory." 'Whether the trial judge should have directed the jury that medical evidence should not be rejected unless displaced or put in doubt by other evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

All four psychiatrists accepted at least the possibility that the appellant was in a state of automatism during the relevant events. That possibility was inconsistent with proof beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to perform the actions charged or that his will controlled his actions. Accordingly there was no expert opinion capable of satisfactorily sustaining the jury's verdicts, which were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; sentence set aside; verdicts of not guilty entered on counts 1, 3 and 5.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The convictions of the appellant on counts 1, 3 and 5 of the indictment be quashed and the sentence imposed by Miles CJ be set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, it be ordered that verdicts of not guilty be entered on each of the said counts.']