AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
2
Supreme Court 20 June 2016

R v May

[2016] NSWSC 820

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE WHETHER ACCUSED GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY SELF INDUCED INTOXICATION

Citation: R v May [2016] NSWSC 820
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 June 2016
Judge: Wilson J

Background

The accused was charged with murdering his maternal aunt at Redfern on the night of 11 April 2014. The Crown alleged that he approached the deceased as she walked near her home and struck her multiple times to the head and face with a brick, causing injuries from which she died shortly afterwards.

Earlier that evening, witnesses observed the accused behaving in an erratic and disturbing manner at a nearby unit block. He had told several people he had smoked cannabis ("had a cone") and felt unwell. His behaviour escalated significantly over the course of the evening: he was seen naked, wielding a kitchen knife, holding a woman by the hair, and acting in a manner witnesses variously described as "weird," "spaced out," and "possessed."

The accused elected to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), with the Crown's consent. Wilson J presided over the trial, hearing both written statements tendered as exhibits and oral evidence, and attending the scene pursuant to s 53 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased.
  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the requisite specific intent for murder, namely an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, in circumstances where the accused was self-intoxicated at the time of the offence.

Decision

The physical circumstances of the assault were not seriously in dispute. Multiple witnesses placed the accused at or near the scene, and his presence beside the deceased's body was observed directly. The central contest was whether self-induced intoxication, primarily from cannabis but with evidence suggesting possible methylamphetamine use, negated the specific intent required for a murder conviction under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Wilson J accepted that the accused was significantly intoxicated at the time of the offence and acknowledged that he would not have acted as he did but for that intoxication. However, the court concluded that the degree of intoxication fell short of what would be required to preclude the formation of specific intent.

The court pointed to evidence of purposeful and rational conduct immediately before, during, and after the assault. After striking the deceased, the accused identified himself to a resident of a nearby unit block, told that person and another not to panic, and expressly sought shelter from police inside the building. He also made coherent requests of arresting officers, including asking for water, and made deliberate choices when interacting with ambulance officers, such as consenting to having his facial injuries cleaned while refusing other observations.

Wilson J found that this pattern of behaviour, in close temporal proximity to the assault, demonstrated a capacity to act with reason and purpose. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had formed a specific intent to at least inflict grievous bodily harm, if not to kill, and returned a verdict of guilty of murder.

Orders Made

  • The accused was found guilty of the murder of Judith Townsend on 11 April 2014 at Redfern, New South Wales.

Key Takeaways

  • Self-induced intoxication does not automatically negate the specific intent required for murder; the question is whether the degree of intoxication, on the evidence, actually prevented the accused from forming that intent at the relevant time.
  • Wilson J applied close scrutiny to the accused's conduct immediately surrounding the assault, treating behaviour in that temporal window as probative evidence of whether specific intent was formed.
  • A finding that an accused "would not have acted as he did but for" his intoxication is not, of itself, sufficient to defeat a murder charge; the court must be satisfied the intoxication rendered formation of intent impossible.
  • Evidence of rational, self-interested behaviour after a violent act, such as seeking shelter from police or making coherent requests of officers, can support an inference that the accused retained the capacity for purposeful thought at the relevant time.
  • Under s 132 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), where an accused elects trial by judge alone and the Crown consents, and the court is satisfied the accused received appropriate legal advice, the court is obliged to order the trial to proceed in that manner.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a) (offence of murder)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132 (election for trial by judge alone)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 53 (view of premises)

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.