A jury is not bound to accept uncontradicted medical evidence of impaired capacity to control actions where other evidence of the accused's conduct at the time of the offence — including calm telephone conversations, text messaging, and washing of blood-stained clothing — is capable of demonstrating executive function inconsistent with substantial impairment. Where a psychiatrist describes impairment as 'moderate to significant' but declines to use the word 'substantial', the jury is entitled to find the onus of proving substantial impairment under s 304A(1) of the Criminal Code has not been discharged.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.