R v Rey Quintana (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1732

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rey Quintana (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1732 Hearing dates: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10,11,12,13,16,19 and 20 November 2020 Date of orders: 3 December 2020 Decision date: 03 December 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: 1. On the indictment for murder presented on 2 November 2020 I find the accused not guilty. 2. The accused is discharged. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – self-defence – death by single stab wound – whether accused believed it necessary to do what he did – whether reasonable response – role of mental illness in perception of circumstances – not guilty Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 R v Hutchinson & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759 Palmer v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 1; [1998] HCA 2 R v Quintana (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 724 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Rey Quintana (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Daleo (Crown) A Evers (Defendant)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Alpha Law (Defendant) File Number(s): 2018/67200 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. On 28 February 2018, Thomas Halatoa died from a single stab wound to his back. Rey Quintana inflicted that fatal wound. He has been charged with murder, an offence under s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). 2. There is no doubt that the stabbing occurred in the context of the accused being bashed and robbed in his apartment by all or some of the three people attending his apartment that day: Thomas Halatoa, Nadine Tairi and a large powerfully built young man known to the accused, Tekawau Opai, known as, and referred to in this judgment as "TK". After he had been robbed and badly bashed around the face and head, these three people ran out of the apartment shortly after 4:00pm, observed by a number of neighbours who lived close by. 3. The accused asked a neighbour to call the police as his phone had been stolen in the robbery. When the police arrived, the accused was confused as to what was happening and why the police arrested him. He was observed to have significant swelling and bruising to his face and head. His right eye in particular was swollen shut. 4. He did not know that in the intervening hour or so, Mr Halatoa had collapsed after running from the building with the others, and had been taken by taxi to Mt Druitt Hospital, the stab wound inflicted by the accused having punctured his lung. Mr Halatoa was pronounced dead at 5:15pm. 5. The Crown case is that the accused deliberately stabbed Mr Halatoa, intending to cause him grievous bodily harm, because he was angry at being robbed and bashed. 6. The defence case is that the accused did not intend to cause grievous bodily harm to Mr Halatoa in striking out with the knife as he did, but even if the Court infers that he had formed that intent, he had been severely beaten and robbed and was frightened of the assailants who would not leave. He grabbed a knife to defend himself because he believed that was what he had to do in the distress of the moment and in the circumstances as he perceived them. His belief and his perception cannot be examined without taking into account his long term treatment-resistant schizophrenia and its effects on his state of mind at that time. Those matters, properly considered, the accused says, should lead to his acquittal. 7. Alternatively, he argues, if the Court concludes that murder has been established and self-defence has been negatived by the Crown to the required high standard of proof, the accused's capacity to control himself was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind, namely his long term treatment-resistant schizophrenia, and this was so substantial an impairment that murder should be reduced to manslaughter. 8. The hearing proceeded as a judge alone trial after entry of a plea of not guilty. My reasons for granting the accused's application for a judge alone trial are set out in R v Quintana (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 724. 9. Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) requires certain things of me in this role in this trial. I may make any finding that could have been made by a jury on the question of the guilt of the accused and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of the jury. I must include in my judgment the principles of law applied and my findings of fact upon which I relied in reaching my verdict. If any act or law requires a warning to be given to a jury, I must take such a warning into account in dealing with the matter. 10. The trial commenced on 2 November 2020. The Court heard evidence from twenty-four witnesses over 11 days. On Friday 13 November 2020 the Court conducted a view of various locations in Tregear, including inside the accused's apartment, the building and its surrounds, the pathway through residences to a nearby street where Mr Halatoa collapsed, the foyer of an apartment building where Mr Halatoa was located for a period before being transported to hospital by taxi and the local shopping centre where various CCTV cameras recorded some of the movements of Mr Halatoa, Ms Tairi and TK. 11. I heard counsels' addresses on 20 November 2020. I reserved my decision. I am now in a position to deliver my verdict. These are my reasons for that verdict. First I will set out the legal principles by which I am guided in reaching my verdict. I will then set out a narrative of the evidence which includes my findings as to which parts of the evidence I accept and which parts I do not accept. Finally, I will set out the reasons that form the basis of my decision and I will at the end of that, announce the verdict.