AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court

R v JM (Verdict)

[2024] NSWSC 773

Assault & violenceHomicide

Citation: R v JM [2024] NSWSC 773
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 June 2024
Judge: Dhanji J


Background

The accused, JM, was 17 years old at the time of the events on 29 May 2022 in Casino, NSW, during the local "Beef Week" festival. He faced two charges: murder of a 17-year-old (the deceased), and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm of another young man. The accused did not dispute that his acts caused the death and the wounding. The central questions were whether he bore criminal responsibility for those acts and, if so, to what extent.

The deceased had harboured a significant grievance toward the accused, apparently connected to a former relationship. On the day in question, the deceased sought out the accused at a KFC restaurant, armed with knuckledusters concealed in a sock over his left hand. After a confrontation outside the restaurant escalated into a broader melee involving multiple young people, the accused was at one point pinned to the ground and struck by several attackers. He then produced a knife. On regaining his feet, he stabbed one person in the back, superficially wounded another, and then exchanged blows with the deceased, inflicting a fatal wound to the neck that severed the jugular vein.

The entire sequence of events was captured on high-quality CCTV footage from multiple angles and by two mobile phones. The accused suffers from Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), a condition that affects cognitive function and was raised as part of his defence.


  • Whether the accused was acting in lawful self-defence or defence of another, which would entitle him to a full acquittal on both counts.
  • If self-defence was not fully established, whether the accused was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder on the basis of excessive self-defence (that is, where a person genuinely believed their conduct was necessary in self-defence, but their response was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them).
  • Whether the accused was entitled to a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder on the basis of substantial impairment by a cognitive impairment (FASD) under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
  • Whether the accused was guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in respect of the second complainant.

Decision

Dhanji J rejected the complete self-defence claim in relation to the fatal stabbing. While the court accepted that the accused genuinely believed his conduct was necessary to defend himself, the Crown proved that his response was not a reasonable one in the circumstances as he perceived them. This finding gave rise to liability for manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence, which applies where a genuine belief in necessity exists but the response goes beyond what was objectively proportionate.

On the murder charge, Dhanji J therefore found the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The verdict was reached via the excessive self-defence route. The judgment does not disclose, based on the available text, a detailed separate ruling on the substantial impairment defence, though it was plainly considered as an alternative pathway to manslaughter. The court's ultimate verdict made it unnecessary to resolve the case solely on that basis.

On count 2, the wounding charge relating to the stabbing of the other victim during the melee, the accused was found not guilty. The precise reasoning on that count is not reproduced in the available extract, but the verdict indicates the Crown failed to establish guilt to the requisite standard on that charge, most likely because self-defence or a related ground was not disproved.

The case also involved a late application for trial by judge alone, which had been granted by Button J shortly before the trial commenced (see R v JM [2024] NSWSC 584). That procedural issue was resolved before Dhanji J conducted the trial and delivered these verdicts.


Orders Made

  • Count 1 (murder of the deceased): the accused found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.
  • Count 2 (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm): the accused found not guilty.

Key Takeaways

  • Excessive self-defence under NSW law produces a verdict of manslaughter, not acquittal. Where a defendant genuinely believed their conduct was necessary to defend themselves or another, but that belief was held on an objectively unreasonable basis, the partial defence reduces murder to manslaughter rather than excusing the conduct entirely.

  • A finding that CCTV and mobile phone footage captures an event comprehensively does not resolve all disputed questions of criminal responsibility. Here, the footage established the physical acts but the accused's state of mind, his cognitive impairment, and the reasonableness of his perceived threat all required separate analysis.

  • Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder was formally raised as a basis for the substantial impairment defence under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), confirming that FASD can ground such a defence in appropriate circumstances, though the court's verdict was ultimately reached via excessive self-defence rather than substantial impairment alone.

  • Where multiple alternative pathways to manslaughter are available (unlawful and dangerous act, excessive self-defence, and substantial impairment), the court will assess each independently. The accused succeeded on one route without the others necessarily being determined in his favour.

  • A late application for trial by judge alone, filed shortly before the trial, was granted in this matter by a separate judge in accordance with the court's practice of allocating such applications to a judge other than the trial judge.


Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 23A, 33(1)(a)
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases:
- R v JM [2024] NSWSC 584 (judge-alone application)
- Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191
- R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
- R v Smith (1837) 8 C&P 173