AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
17
Court of Criminal Appeal 14 December 2018

Quinn v R

[2018] NSWCCA 297

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW MURDER TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION APPLICANT STABBED EX GIRLFRIEND CROWN CASE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

Citation: Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW
Date: 14 December 2018
Judges: Hoeben CJ at CL; White JA; Fagan J

Background

The applicant, aged 24 at the time of the offence, was convicted of murder following a judge-alone trial before Beech-Jones J in the Supreme Court of NSW. He had fatally stabbed his former girlfriend in the front yard of his family home on 22 July 2013, shortly after she had ended their relationship and begun a new one. Immediately after stabbing her, he stabbed himself in the chest and neck, rendering himself permanently quadriplegic.

The Crown case was largely circumstantial. The prosecution argued that the applicant, distressed by the breakup and by evidence his former partner was sleeping with someone else, had deliberately killed her with intent to cause her death. The applicant gave evidence at trial that the killing was accidental: he said he had gone outside intending to stab himself, and that his former partner was inadvertently stabbed when she tried to grab the knife.

It was common ground at trial that the applicant's account of an accidental stabbing was false. The psychiatric evidence proceeded on the basis that the stabbing was deliberate. The applicant therefore relied, in the alternative, on the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The trial judge rejected that defence and convicted him of murder. He was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. He appealed against both conviction and sentence.

  • Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), specifically by:
  • Giving determinative weight to evidence of planning
  • Failing to properly assess and explain the rejection of expert psychiatric opinions
  • Failing to make findings about the applicant's attempted suicide as evidence of impaired self-control
  • Finding that the absence of a credible narrative from the applicant meant the onus under s 23A had not been discharged
  • Whether the guilty verdict was unreasonable
  • On sentence: whether the sentencing judge erred in his treatment of general deterrence, extra-curial punishment (the self-inflicted injuries), special circumstances, and the applicant's diminished moral culpability

Decision

Conviction appeal

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal. The trial judge had correctly found that, while the applicant established an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder), he failed to establish that this substantially impaired his capacity to understand events, judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or control himself at the time of the killing.

A central difficulty was the absence of any reliable account from the applicant about his actual state of mind leading up to and during the stabbing. Because he had falsely claimed the killing was accidental, he gave no evidence about what he intended, what he planned, or what he experienced at the critical time. The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that this left a significant gap in the evidence supporting the partial defence, and that the trial judge was entitled to find the onus under s 23A had not been discharged.

The Court also found no error in the trial judge's treatment of the expert psychiatric evidence. Both Dr Nielssen and Dr Furst had based their opinions largely on the applicant's own (false) account of events. The trial judge was entitled to place reduced weight on those opinions, and adequately explained his reasons for doing so. The claim that determinative weight was given to planning was also rejected. The trial judge had considered all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's self-harm, and his conclusions were open on the evidence.

Sentence appeal

Leave to appeal against sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The Court found no appellable error in the sentencing judge's approach to general deterrence, his treatment of the self-inflicted injuries as extra-curial punishment, or his assessment of objective seriousness in light of the applicant's mental conditions. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders Made

• Leave to appeal against conviction dismissed
• Leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

Key Takeaways

  • 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. An applicant must also prove that the abnormality substantially impaired his capacity to understand events, judge right from wrong, or control his actions.

  • Where a defendant provides a false account of events at trial, the absence of any credible narrative about his actual state of mind at the time of the offence can itself undermine the partial defence of substantial impairment. The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that such an evidential gap may prevent discharge of the onus under s 23A.

  • Expert psychiatric opinions are vulnerable to reduced weight where they are founded substantially on an account that has been rejected as false. The trial judge's obligation is to assess the foundations of expert reasoning, not merely accept the ultimate opinion.

  • No error was established in the sentencing judge's refusal to find special circumstances, or in his approach to the applicant's self-inflicted quadriplegia as a form of extra-curial punishment when balancing the need for general deterrence.

  • In dismissing both appeals, the Court confirmed that a trial judge in a judge-alone murder trial is required to consider all circumstances established by the evidence before drawing an inference of intent, but is not obliged to draw inferences favourable to the defence where the evidence does not support them.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A (partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5(1)(b), (c), 6(1)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 8
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases
- R v Quinn (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1244 (trial judgment)
- R v Quinn (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1699 (sentencing judgment)
- Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Quinn [2015] NSWSC 1326
- Betts v The Queen [2016] HCA 25; 258 CLR 420
- Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47
- Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
- Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
- Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; 52 NSWLR 705
- Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35
- Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132
- Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
- Cvetkovic v R [2013] NSWCCA 66
- Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2
- Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194