Where a jury rejects the defence of unsound mind under s 27(1) of the Criminal Code (WA), the presumption of sanity under s 26 applies, and evidence relevant to but not establishing insanity must still be left to the jury on the question of specific intent — but only if that evidence is capable of raising a reasonable doubt. A trial judge's directions are adequate if, taken as a whole, they convey that the jury must have regard to the totality of the evidence when assessing specific intent, even without a specific direction linking the mental illness evidence to the intent question.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.