Citation: R v Quinn (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1244
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 8 September 2016
Judge: Beech-Jones J
Background
The accused was charged with murdering his former girlfriend at Farmborough Heights on 22 July 2013. The deceased, aged 25, died at Wollongong Hospital that evening from blood loss caused by a cut to the carotid artery and jugular vein in her neck. The fatal wound was inflicted in the front yard of residential premises shared by the accused with his brother and parents.
The Crown alleged the accused had been told the relationship was over in the weeks before the death and that he had seen a Facebook post and text message confirming the deceased was seeing someone else. According to the Crown, those circumstances led the accused to deliberately stab the deceased in the neck with an intention to kill her. Immediately after the deceased's throat was cut, the accused stabbed himself in the chest and neck, resulting in quadriplegia.
The accused gave a different account. He said he had been the one to end the relationship and had decided to take his own life to free the deceased from what he described as a dysfunctional dynamic. He said the cutting of the deceased's throat was accidental, occurring when she intervened to stop him harming himself. The accused elected to be tried by judge alone, with the prosecution's consent.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately stabbed the deceased, given the circumstantial nature of the evidence.
- Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill the deceased.
- Whether the accused established the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which, if made out, would reduce the verdict from murder to manslaughter.
Decision
Deliberate stabbing and intention to kill
Beech-Jones J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately stabbed the deceased. The Crown's case was circumstantial, and his Honour applied the established principle that a guilty verdict on circumstantial evidence requires that the only reasonable inference available from the whole of the evidence points to guilt. The physical evidence, including the accused's DNA on the knife handle and the deceased's blood on the blade, combined with the nature and location of the wounds, supported that inference. Defensive wounds on the deceased's hand and the pattern of neck injuries were inconsistent with the accident account given by the accused, and inconsistent with self-harm by the deceased.
His Honour was also satisfied that the accused formed an intention to kill the deceased before stabbing her, and that he had independently formed an intention to kill himself. The nature of the wound to the deceased's neck left no rational inference open other than that the accused intended to kill her.
Substantial impairment
All three psychiatrists who gave evidence accepted that the accused had an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, specifically obsessive compulsive disorder and borderline personality disorder. That element of s 23A was therefore established.
However, the partial defence failed on the remaining elements. Because the accused did not provide a reliable narrative about when and how he formed the intention to act and what steps he took, his Honour could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused's capacity to control himself was substantially impaired at the relevant time. For similar reasons, the court was not satisfied that the accused's capacity to understand events, or to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, was substantially impaired when he stabbed the deceased. The accused was accordingly found guilty of murder.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- In a judge-alone trial, the judge must set out the principles of law applied and the findings of fact relied upon, performing the same analytical function that directions to a jury would otherwise serve.
- Where a murder case rests on circumstantial evidence, a conviction requires that the only reasonable inference available from the totality of established facts is that the accused committed the act with the requisite intention; no other rational inference can remain open.
- Under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), establishing an abnormality of mind from an underlying condition is a necessary but not sufficient step: the accused must also prove on the balance of probabilities that the abnormality substantially impaired at least one of the three specified capacities (understanding events, judging right from wrong, or controlling conduct).
- The absence of a reliable account from the accused about the sequence of events leading to the killing directly undermined the substantial impairment defence, because without such a narrative the court could not assess whether the relevant capacity was substantially impaired at the critical moment.
- Physical evidence, including wound characteristics and DNA findings, can be sufficient to exclude an accidental causation account and to support the inference of deliberate, intentional conduct even where the accused gives sworn evidence to the contrary.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 23A
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132(2), 133(2), 133(3)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
- Crimes Amendment (Provocation) Act 2014 (NSW)
- Crimes Amendment (Diminished Responsibility) Act 1997 (NSW)
Cases
- Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82
- Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
- Haoui v Regina (2008) 118 A Crim R 331
- Potts v R (2012) 227 A Crim R 217
- R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396
- R v Cheatham [2002] NSWCCA 360
- R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
- R v Majdalawi (2000) 113 A Crim R 241
- R v Murphy (1985) 4 NSWLR 42
- R v Trotter (1993) 35 NSWLR 428
- Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
- The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35
- Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313
- Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234