Citation: R v Close [2020] NSWSC 1026
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 August 2020
Judge: Button J
Background
The accused was charged with murdering the deceased, an older, frail man with emphysema who lived alone in a small apartment in Nowra. The two men were known to each other and were on good terms, with no history of prior trouble between them. The accused had a history of substance use and angry outbursts, and on the day of the killing had consumed a large quantity of alcohol and other substances before arriving at the deceased's home.
The accused entered a plea of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown did not accept that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment, and a judge-alone trial proceeded. The physical act of unlawfully killing the deceased was not in dispute. The sole contested question was whether the accused possessed the mental element required for murder at the time of the killing.
The deceased sustained multiple stab wounds and other injuries consistent with a sustained and violent attack. The accused had no recollection of the event, and expert evidence established he was grossly intoxicated with multiple substances at the time.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, at the time of the killing, intended to cause at least grievous bodily harm (described in the judgment as "really serious physical injury")
- What weight to give to the accused's self-induced intoxication in assessing his mental state at the time of the offence
- Whether alternative rational hypotheses, consistent with an absence of the requisite intent, could be excluded to the criminal standard
Decision
Button J identified the mental element as the only live issue at trial. The defence argued that the accused's extreme intoxication raised a reasonable doubt as to whether he had formed any relevant intention at the time he performed the acts causing death. Three expert witnesses gave evidence bearing on the accused's state of mind.
The Court considered a large body of circumstantial evidence relating to the accused's behaviour immediately before, during, and after the killing. His Honour found that, despite gross intoxication, the accused's conduct demonstrated a mind that was "reasonably well engaged with the world around him." This included his recognition of the deceased as an "old man" during the attack, his subsequent awareness of and apology to another person he had assaulted, his capacity to distinguish between police officers, and his ability to anticipate consequences.
Button J accepted that the accused was genuinely and sincerely amnesic about the killing, that his post-offence behaviour showed signs of emotional regression and irrationality, and that the fatal acts bore the character of a frenzied assault. Nonetheless, his Honour was satisfied that the accused's mind remained sufficiently engaged to form the intention to cause, at the least, really serious physical injury. The repeated and forceful insertion of a knife or knives into a frail elderly man, together with the infliction of numerous other injuries, was central to that conclusion.
Having reflected on and rejected alternative rational hypotheses to the criminal standard, Button J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the mental element of murder was established.
Orders Made
- The accused was found guilty of murder.
Key Takeaways
- Gross self-induced intoxication does not automatically negative the mental element of murder; a court must examine all circumstantial evidence bearing on the accused's actual state of mind at the time of the killing.
- Button J found that purposeful and coherent conduct immediately surrounding the offence, including recognition of the victim, awareness of consequences, and interaction with others, can remain probative of intent even where the accused is heavily intoxicated and later genuinely amnesic.
- Where the physical act of killing is not in dispute, the prosecution's task at a murder trial is confined to establishing the requisite mental element, namely an intention to kill or to cause really serious physical injury, beyond reasonable doubt.
- A frenzy-like character in the fatal acts does not, of itself, establish a lack of intention; the nature, number, and force of the blows inflicted formed part of the inferential reasoning supporting the finding of intent.
- In a judge-alone trial, the court must consider and expressly reject alternative rational hypotheses consistent with innocence of the higher charge before returning a verdict of guilty of murder.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation: No specific legislation was identified in the provided text or metadata.
Cases: No specific cases were cited in the provided text or metadata.