REGINA v MAJDALAWI [2000] NSWCCA 240

Reported Decision : 113 A Crim R 241

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : REGINA v MAJDALAWI [2000] NSWCCA 240 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60324/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 13/06/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 13 June 2000

PARTIES : Regina Hoss Majdalawi JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 1; Newman J at 35; Adams J at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70064/96 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Bell AJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : D N Stewart (Appellant) C K Maxwell WC (Crown) SOLICITORS : Dodaro Lawyers (Appellant) S E O'Connor (Crown) CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - murder - defences - diminished responsibility - "substantial impairment" - Crimes Act 1900, s23A LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 R v Gieselmann (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 November 1996, unreported) CASES CITED: R v Ryan (1995) 90 A Crim R 191 R v Trotter (1993) 68 A Crim R 536 R v Tumanako (1992) 64 A Crim R 149 DECISION : Appeal dismissed

- 13 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60324/98

SPIGELMAN CJ NEWMAN J ADAMS J

Tuesday 13 June 2000

REGINA v Hoss MAJDALAWI

JUDGMENT 1 SPIGELMAN CJ: The Appellant was found guilty of murder. His defence at trial and in this Court was that of diminished responsibility pursuant to s23A of the Crimes Act 1900. The only ground of appeal is that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable having regard to the medical evidence which, it is submitted, clearly establishes the defence of diminished responsibility. 2 On 21 March 1996 the Appellant shot his wife outside the Family Court in Parramatta a number of times, with the last shot at close range to her head. 3 The submissions of both the Appellant and the Crown accepted that three conditions must be made out, namely, the jury must be satisfied that at the time of the killing the Appellant was: