Citation: R v Davidson (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 1011
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 August 2019
Judge: Davies J
Background
The accused and the deceased were both inmates at the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre at Silverwater. On 9 February 2018, CCTV footage recorded the accused entering the deceased's cell, closing the door, and remaining inside for approximately 25 minutes. Shortly after the accused left, the deceased was found unresponsive on the cell floor and was later pronounced dead in hospital. The cause of death was the combined effects of neck compression and blunt force chest trauma.
The accused had a history of violence in custody, having previously attempted to choke a prior cellmate with a T-shirt in February 2017. On the morning of the offence, he had consumed methamphetamine (ice) and Xanax. When confronted by police, he made limited and dismissive remarks but did not deny involvement. He told the court he could not remember carrying out the acts causing death.
The trial proceeded before Davies J alone, without a jury, following an order made on the accused's application and with the Crown's consent.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused's acts caused the death of the deceased, given that no witness observed the assault directly and the Crown case was entirely circumstantial
- Whether the accused was mentally ill within the meaning of the relevant legislation, such that he did not know what he was doing or did not know it was wrong (the mental illness defence)
- Whether the accused's substantial impairment by an abnormality of mind reduced his liability from murder to manslaughter under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Whether the accused's self-induced intoxication from methamphetamine and Xanax negated the specific intent required for murder under ss 428C and 428E of the Crimes Act
Decision
Causation and identity of the killer: Davies J found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's acts caused the deceased's death. The CCTV footage established that the deceased and the accused were alone in the cell for approximately 25 minutes with the door closed. The injuries were not self-inflicted and could not have resulted from misadventure. No other person was present. The circumstantial evidence pointed exclusively to the accused as the perpetrator.
Mental illness defence: Both expert psychiatrists agreed that the accused suffered from schizophrenia, satisfying the threshold requirement of a disease of the mind. However, the defence required the accused to demonstrate that the mental illness, rather than his self-induced intoxication, was responsible for his conduct. The accused had consumed methamphetamine and Xanax that morning, and crucially, he knew from prior experience that ice caused him to hear voices and made him violent. Davies J found that the accused had not established that his mental illness was the operative cause of his actions, nor that he did not know his actions were wrong. The mental illness defence was rejected.
Substantial impairment: The partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A, which can reduce murder to manslaughter, also failed. Because the accused could not separate the effects of his mental illness from those of his self-induced intoxication, he could not prove that his impairment arose from an underlying condition rather than the drugs he had taken voluntarily. Additionally, Davies J held that even if substantial impairment had been established, the accused's knowledge that ice triggered violent behaviour and auditory hallucinations meant the impairment would not have been so substantial as to warrant reducing the charge under the relevant community standards test.
Intoxication and specific intent: While the intoxication defence could not assist the accused in relation to the mental illness or substantial impairment questions, it did bear directly on the element of specific intent required for murder. Davies J was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, in the context of his intoxication, had formed the intention to kill or to cause really serious bodily harm. Accordingly, the Crown had not proved all elements of murder. The accused was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
Orders Made
- Verdict of not guilty to murder entered
- Verdict of guilty to manslaughter entered
Key Takeaways
- Where an accused person raises the mental illness defence but cannot disentangle the effects of a concurrent mental illness from those of self-induced intoxication, the defence will fail because the accused bears the onus of establishing that the mental illness was operative on their conduct at the relevant time.
- Under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), substantial impairment will not reduce murder to manslaughter where the accused's own prior knowledge that drug use triggers violent or psychotic episodes undermines the moral weight of the impairment claim.
- Self-induced intoxication cannot support a mental illness defence or a substantial impairment claim, but it remains available to negate the specific intent required for murder under Part 11A of the Crimes Act, potentially resulting in a manslaughter verdict instead.
- In a judge-alone trial, the "so substantial as to warrant" threshold in s 23A requires the judge to apply community standards and make a value judgment weighing the nature of the killing against the severity of the accused's impairment, in the same manner a jury would.
- A wholly circumstantial Crown case can satisfy the requisite standard of proof where the physical evidence, CCTV footage, and elimination of all other possible causes collectively point to one conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 23A, 428A, 428B, 428C, 428E, 428G
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 132, 132A
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 38
Cases:
- M'Naghten's Case, Re (1843) 8 ER 718
- R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
- R v Haydar (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 159
- R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
- R v Jennings [2005] NSWSC 789
- R v Meddings [1966] VR 306
- R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
- Regina v Christov [2006] NSWSC 972