Citation: R v Eyuboglu (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 285
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 March 2019
Judge: Button J
Background
The accused was charged with the murder of a man with whom he had been living in a south-eastern Sydney apartment in August 2017. On the evening of 29 August 2017, the accused repeatedly stabbed the deceased with a knife, causing his death. The two men were alone in the apartment at the time.
The accused had a long-standing diagnosis of schizophrenia, supported by the unanimous opinion of two forensic psychiatrists, entries in a detailed personal diary, and the evidence of people close to him. His illness manifested in auditory hallucinations, paranoid beliefs, and associated depression. On the day of the killing, the accused had consumed alcohol and had smoked a significant quantity of crystal methylamphetamine.
The trial proceeded by judge alone, with Button J as the sole fact-finder. The elements of the offence of murder were not in dispute. The entire trial turned on whether either of two defences had been established.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused established, on the balance of probabilities, the complete defence of mental illness under the M'Naghten rules, specifically that at the time of the stabbing he did not appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his acts.
- If the mental illness defence failed, whether the accused established, on the balance of probabilities, the partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which would reduce the verdict from murder to manslaughter.
Decision
Mental illness defence: Button J accepted that the accused suffered from schizophrenia, a disease of the mind, at the time of the killing. However, the Crown did not concede that this produced a relevant defect of reason, and the defence relied specifically on the limb of the M'Naghten test concerning appreciation of wrongfulness (rather than the nature and quality of the act). After reviewing the evidence, His Honour was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused failed to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the relevant time. The mental illness defence therefore failed.
Substantial impairment partial defence: Button J accepted that the accused suffered from a pre-existing, non-transitory mental condition (schizophrenia) that produced an abnormality of mind, and that this abnormality impaired at least one of the three relevant capacities under s 23A (understanding events, judging right from wrong, or self-control). The contested questions were whether that impairment was substantial, and if so, whether it was so substantial as to warrant reducing liability from murder to manslaughter.
His Honour identified a number of countervailing factors bearing on those questions. These included the accused's apparent capacity to form an intention to kill (inferred from the number, location, and depth of the wounds), the presence of significant intoxication from self-administered substances, and the view that community standards in 2019 would afford little weight to any suggestion the attack was rooted in hostility toward the deceased's sexual orientation.
After extended reflection, Button J found his mind evenly balanced on whether the reduction in liability was warranted. He noted that this state of uncertainty was itself decisive: because the accused bore the onus of establishing the partial defence on the balance of probabilities, an evenly balanced mind meant that onus had not been discharged. The partial defence accordingly failed, and a verdict of guilty of murder was returned.
Orders Made
• Verdict of guilty of murder returned against Gokhan Eyuboglu for the murder of Charles Grace on 29 August 2017 at Chifley
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court confirmed that in a judge-alone murder trial, the burden of establishing both the complete defence of mental illness and the partial defence of substantial impairment rests on the accused, and the standard is the balance of probabilities.
- Under the M'Naghten rules, accepting that an accused suffers from schizophrenia (a disease of the mind) does not automatically establish a defect of reason, nor does it automatically mean the accused failed to appreciate the moral wrongfulness of the fatal act.
- A finding that the accused's mind was evenly balanced on the substantial impairment defence was sufficient to defeat it. Where the accused fails to tip the balance of probabilities even slightly in their favour, the onus is not discharged.
- The partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A requires not merely that an impairment existed and was substantial, but that it was so substantial as to warrant the reduction from murder to manslaughter. This third element involves an evaluative judgment to which community standards are relevant.
- Button J treated a proven intention to kill as a relevant factor weighing against reduction of liability from murder to manslaughter in the substantial impairment analysis.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 38, 39
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
Cases:
- M'Naghten's Case, Re [1843-60] All ER 22; (1843) 8 ER 718
- Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205
- R v Eyuboglu [2019] NSWSC 181
- R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759