Citation: Regina v Cheatham [2002] NSWCCA 360
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 29 August 2002
Judge(s): Smart AJ, Beazley JA, Bell J
Background
The appellant was convicted in the Supreme Court of murdering his wife and elder daughter and wounding his younger daughter with intent to murder her. On the night of 5 March 1998, he stabbed all three family members at their home, acting on a delusional belief that he had AIDS and had infected them. Both his wife and elder daughter died; the younger daughter survived following surgery.
The appellant believed he was sparing his family from suffering. He then inflicted injuries on himself and was found by a security guard in the early hours of 6 March 1998, having attempted to die from blood loss. Medical evidence confirmed the HIV test returned negative, and forensic psychiatric evidence diagnosed the appellant with a delusional disorder and hypochondriasis.
At trial before Grove J in the Supreme Court, the defence raised two alternative defences: mental illness (which the jury rejected) and diminished responsibility under s 23A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The jury also rejected the diminished responsibility defence. Grove J sentenced the appellant to 24 years imprisonment for the murder of his wife, 16 years for the murder of his elder daughter, and 12 years for wounding with intent to murder, all to be served concurrently from 6 March 1998.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on the defence of diminished responsibility were adequate
- Whether experienced senior counsel's failure to take objection to those directions at trial affected the appeal
- Whether the sentence adequately allowed for the appellant's abnormality of mind
- Whether sufficient weight was given to the fact that the appellant would serve his sentence in protective custody
Decision
On the conviction appeal, the Court examined the adequacy of the directions given on diminished responsibility. The critical question under s 23A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 is whether, at the time of the offence, the defendant's capacity to understand events, judge their wrongfulness, or control conduct was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition. The Court engaged in a detailed discussion of how such directions should be framed, drawing on a range of earlier authorities.
The Court found the trial judge's directions were adequate in the circumstances. Significantly, experienced senior counsel for the defence had not taken any objection to the directions at trial, a factor the Court regarded as a relevant indicator that no substantial deficiency existed. The critical issues, including the nature of the defendant's delusional state and its effect on his responsibility, were left to the jury for determination.
On the sentence appeal, the Court considered whether Grove J had given sufficient weight to the appellant's mental illness and to the hardship of serving the sentence in protective custody. His Honour had expressly found that, despite some degree of delusion, the appellant was aware at the relevant times of the nature and quality of his acts and knew they were wrong. His Honour concluded that the appellant's culpability was not significantly reduced by the abnormality of mind, and that the case did not fall into the worst category. The Court found no appealable error in that reasoning.
Beazley JA agreed that no appealable error had been demonstrated in the sentencing approach. Her Honour noted that Grove J had squarely addressed both the abnormality of mind and the protective custody conditions when imposing sentence, and that his findings were open on the evidence.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal against sentence granted
- Appeal against sentence dismissed
- (The appeal against conviction was also dismissed)
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that directions on diminished responsibility under s 23A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 will be assessed as adequate where the critical issues are left to the jury and experienced counsel at trial raised no objection to the directions given.
- A detailed discussion of the appropriate content of diminished responsibility directions was undertaken, providing guidance on how the defence should be explained to juries in future cases.
- No error was established in the sentencing approach where the trial judge expressly addressed the extent of the defendant's abnormality of mind and found it did not significantly reduce culpability, even where a delusional disorder was present.
- Serving a sentence in protective custody is a relevant factor in sentencing, but its weight is a matter for the sentencing judge; appellate intervention is not warranted where the judge demonstrably took it into account.
- In dismissing both appeals, the Court reinforced that appellate courts will not intervene merely because an alternative approach to directions or sentencing was available, provided the trial judge's approach was open on the evidence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A(1) (diminished responsibility)
- Criminal Appeal Rules
Cases:
- R v Ryan (1995) 90 A Crim R 191
- R v Gieselmann (CCA, 12 November 1996)
- R v Wilde (1988) 164 CLR 365
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Chayna (1993) 66 A Crim R 178
- R v Tumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 149
- R v Turnbull (1977) 65 Cr App R 242
- R v Spriggs [1958] 1 QB 270
- R v Trotter (1993) 68 A Crim R 536
- Azzopardi & Davis (2001) 119 A Crim R 8
- HM Advocate v Braithwaite 1945 SC (J) 55
- R v Champion (1992) 64 A Crim R 244
- R v Letteri (CCA, unreported, 18 March 1992)
- R v AB (1999) 198 CLR 111
- R v Davies (1978) 68 Cr App R 319
- R v Perez-Vargas (1986) 8 NSWLR 559
- R v Gardiner [2002] NSWCCA 209
- R v Bus (NSWCCA, unreported, 3 November 1995)
- R v Elchami (NSWCCA, unreported, 15 December 1995)
- R v Jarman [2001] NSWCCA 178