R v James Patrick JOYCE [2005] NSWDC 13

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v James Patrick JOYCE [2005] NSWDC 13 Hearing dates: 2 June 2004, 4 June 2004 - 1 July 2004 Decision date: 24 June 2004 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Directions to be given in accordance with annexure. Catchwords: Trial - Proposed directions to the jury - Dissociative fugue - Voluntariness - Disease of the mind - Automatism - Insanity Legislation Cited: Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 Mental Health Act Criminal Appeal Act Cases Cited: R v Ayoub (1984) 10 A Crim R 313 Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 177 CLR 500 R v Youssef (1990) 50 A Crim R 1 Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 R v Parks [1992] 2 SCR 871 Bratty v Attorney-General (Northern Ireland) [1963] AC 386 Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277 Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56 R v Abusafiah (1991) 24 NSWLR 531 Perka v The Queen (1985) 14 CCC 385 R v Rogers (1996) 86 A Crim R 542 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Crown James Patrick Joyce Representation: Counsel: N. Adams - Crown R. Bonnici - Accused

Solicitors: NSWDPP File Number(s): 02/11/0125

Judgment

Reasons for my Proposed Directions to the Jury

What this Judgment is about 1. This is a judgment given part way through a jury trial. The accused, Dr James Joyce is charged with 2 counts of dangerous driving causing death. The ultimate issue for the jury is whether Dr Joyce was driving voluntarily at the time the car he was driving collided with a car in which Mr Robert Mason and Mrs Enid Mason were travelling. 2. This judgment deals with two issues concerning the way in which I should direct the jury. Those issues are: * Should the verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental illness be left to the jury. And * Should I tell the jury that those acting in a dissociative fugue are necessarily acting voluntarily.