Fuller v R [2021] NSWCCA 194

Fuller v R [2021] NSWCCA 194

The applicant's evidence regarding a delusion ('The Syndicate') influencing the killing of the victim is new, not fresh evidence, was always available to him, and is not credible or capable of belief. The psychiatric opinion supporting substantial impairment is dependent on this account and similarly lacks cogency. No miscarriage of justice is demonstrated; leave to appeal (after extension of time) is refused.

Parties
Applicant: Owen Junior Fuller; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Legal Topics
Appeal Against Conviction, Murder, Guilty Plea, Mental Illness Defence, Substantial Impairment, Fresh Evidence, New Evidence, Miscarriage of Justice
Criminal Law Appeal Against Conviction Murder Guilty Plea Mental Illness Defence Substantial Impairment Fresh Evidence New Evidence +1 more

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Owen Junior Fuller

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh or new evidence supports a miscarriage of justice claim allowing the applicant to go behind guilty plea
  2. 2 Whether applicant's evidence relating to mental illness at time of offence is credible or capable of belief
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal against conviction should be granted after extension of time

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's evidence regarding a delusion ('The Syndicate') influencing the killing of the victim is new, not fresh evidence, was always available to him, and is not credible or capable of belief. The psychiatric opinion supporting substantial impairment is dependent on this account and similarly lacks cogency. No miscarriage of justice is demonstrated; leave to appeal (after extension of time) is refused.