R v Fang (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 1783

R v Fang (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 1783

The current form of s.23A Crimes Act 1900 prohibits expert medical opinion only on the second step in s.23A(1)(b), namely whether impairment was so substantial as to warrant reducing liability for murder to manslaughter. It does not prohibit questioning a forensic psychiatrist about the components of s.23A(1)(a), including whether any relevant impairment was substantial. However, Dr Skinner's conditional sentence concerning drug-induced psychosis should not be placed before the jury in an unadorned way.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Permissible Expert Medical Evidence During Cross Examination
Outcome
Crown objection upheld in part; cross-examination of Dr Skinner allowed within the limits identified by the Court.
Legal Topics
['partial Defence of Substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'expert Psychiatric Opinion Evidence' 'admissibility of Medical Opinion' 'murder and Manslaughter']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['partial Defence of Substantial Impairment by Abnormality of Mind' 'expert Psychiatric Opinion Evidence' 'admissibility of Medical Opinion' 'murder and Manslaughter']

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

Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Permissible Expert Medical Evidence During Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a forensic psychiatrist may be asked, for the purposes of s.23A(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900, whether any impairment of the Accused was substantial.' 'Whether s.23A(2) Crimes Act 1900 prohibits medical opinion evidence only on whether impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter under s.23A(1)(b).' "Whether the particular sentence in Dr Skinner's report could be used before the jury in an unadorned way."]

Ratio Decidendi

The current form of s.23A Crimes Act 1900 prohibits expert medical opinion only on the second step in s.23A(1)(b), namely whether impairment was so substantial as to warrant reducing liability for murder to manslaughter. It does not prohibit questioning a forensic psychiatrist about the components of s.23A(1)(a), including whether any relevant impairment was substantial. However, Dr Skinner's conditional sentence concerning drug-induced psychosis should not be placed before the jury in an unadorned way.

Court Disposition

Crown objection upheld in part; cross-examination of Dr Skinner allowed within the limits identified by the Court.

Orders

  • ["Allow questions of Dr Skinner as to the degree of the Accused's impairment and whether it was substantial." "Uphold the objection to the use of the identified sentence from Dr Skinner's report in evidence in an unadorned way." 'Permit Senior Counsel for the Accused to cross-examine Dr Skinner about the components...