Citation: R v Ryan (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1421
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 October 2020
Judge: Button J
Background
The accused and the deceased had been in a relationship for over three decades and shared an apartment in Tweed Heads. Their romantic relationship had ended, and the deceased had begun a new relationship with another man. The accused was aware of this and expressed his anger through social media posts and explicit verbal threats of violence directed at the deceased.
On 12 November 2018, an interim apprehended violence order was made against the accused at Tweed Heads Local Court. That afternoon, the accused drank nine schooners of beer over approximately five hours at a local bowls club. That evening, he returned to the apartment and inflicted more than 30 stab wounds on the deceased using at least two knives, also causing blunt force trauma to her head. The deceased bled to death in the kitchen. Neighbours heard the assault but could not intervene as both doors were locked.
The accused was arraigned for murder and pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept that plea. The trial proceeded before Button J alone, by agreement of the parties, with the sole contested issue being whether the partial defence of substantial impairment under section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) reduced the accused's liability from murder to manslaughter.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused's cognitive impairments, namely brain damage from chronic alcohol abuse and a mood disorder, substantially impaired his capacity to understand events, to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, or to control himself within the meaning of section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- Whether, even if substantial impairment were established, the impairment was of a kind that warranted a reduction in criminal liability from murder to manslaughter, having regard to community standards.
- Whether the accused's admitted intentional act of killing the deceased constituted murder.
Decision
Button J accepted that the accused suffered from two recognised conditions: brain damage caused by chronic alcohol abuse, and a mood disorder. The court also accepted that these conditions caused some impairment of his capacity to understand events and to control himself. However, the court found that the accused had not established on the balance of probabilities that either impairment rose to the level of being "substantial" as required by section 23A.
On the evidence, the accused's behaviour before, during, and after the killing was purposeful and goal-directed. He had made explicit threats to the deceased over a month earlier that he would commit serious violence if she continued her relationship with Mr Robinson. He carried out precisely that threat. He locked the doors to prevent intervention, forced the deceased at knifepoint to telephone her sister, and was found calmly smoking a cigarette when police arrived. These features pointed against a substantially impaired capacity.
Button J then proceeded to consider, contingently, whether even if substantial impairment had been established, community standards would call for a reduction in liability. The court identified nine factors bearing on that question, including the history of threats, the prolonged and brutal nature of the assault, the deceased's audible pleas for her life, and the lasting harm caused to the deceased's sister by being forced to listen to the killing from hundreds of kilometres away.
The court concluded that community standards would not call for mitigation in culpability from murder to manslaughter even on the assumption that the relevant capacities had been substantially impaired. Button J returned a verdict of guilty of murder.
Orders Made
• Verdict: Guilty of murder on the indictment presented on 28 September 2020, alleging that Paul Thomas Ryan murdered Maree Van Beers on 12 November 2018
Key Takeaways
- Under section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an accused bears the onus of establishing substantial impairment on the balance of probabilities; a finding of some impairment is not sufficient to make out the partial defence.
- The Supreme Court found that purposeful, goal-directed conduct before and during a killing, including pre-meditation evidenced by explicit prior threats, was inconsistent with the required level of substantial impairment.
- Where the partial defence of substantial impairment is raised, the court must consider not only whether the relevant capacity was substantially impaired but also whether, in light of community standards, the impairment warrants a reduction in liability from murder to manslaughter.
- Button J expressly situated the killing within the broader context of fatal domestic violence, observing that community standards in 2020 regard such acts as a serious societal harm rather than an inevitable feature of life, and that this context bears on the community standards assessment under section 23A.
- A judge sitting alone in a criminal trial is required to reason through the community standards element as a notional jury of twelve members of the community would, but unlike a jury must provide reasoned explanations for the conclusions reached.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A (substantial impairment by abnormality of mind as a partial defence to murder)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 165
Cases: No specific cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.