Woolbridge

From Uni Study Guides
Jump to: navigation, search

Citation: Woolbridge [2010] NSWCCA 185.

This information can be found in the Textbook: Brown et al, Criminal Laws: Materials and Commentary on Criminal Law and Process in New South Wales, (5th edition, Federation Press, 2011), pp. 538-42.

Contents

Background facts

  • The accused crossed a median strip and collided head-on with the deceased and her husband (who was left with severe disabling injuries).
  • Th accused had a blood alcohol reading of 0.269 (well, well over the legal limit).
  • She argued sane automatism.
  • At trial, the trial judge refused to allow the jury to consider sane automatism because this was a case of an unhealthy mind reacting to an external factor, as opposed to a sound mind reacting to an external factor as required (test from a case called Radford[1]).

Argument

  • The accused argued she suffered a psychological blow due to abusive phone calls from her ex-boyfriend that morning.
  • From the time of the phone call, she went into a dissociative state, and her actions thereafter were involuntary (including her excessive consumption of alcohol).

Legal issues

Judgement

  • For sane automatism, the accused has an evidentiary burden and then the prosecution needs to disprove it beyond all reasonable doubt. This is usually determined using psychiatric evidence.
  • It is not for the psychiatrists to determine whether the accused was legally responsible for his/her actions - that is for the court. The psychiatrists' duty is to explain the mental condition of the accused.
  • In this case, whilst the phone calls were abusive, they weren't extraordinary. They weren't enough to cause a person of a sound mind to be thrown into a dissociative state (ie, there was not enough of a psychological blow).
  • Rather, the fact that the accused went into a dissociative state merely because of those phone calls shows that she had an unsound mind.
  • Thus, the issue here is of insane automatism, as opposed to sane automatism.
  • The Trial Judge was correct in refusing the jury to consider sane automatism, and the appeal is dismissed.

References

  1. (1985) 42 SASR 266
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox