R v Wilson

The parties' cases

1. The Crown's case is that on the limited evidence received, it has proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson committed the offence of murder and if not, that she committed manslaughter.
2. The case advanced for Ms Wilson is that she committed neither offence, but if the elements of the offence of murder are established beyond reasonable doubt, then the evidence has also established that she has a partial defence of mental impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act, which will result in the conclusion that she is not guilty of murder, but rather of manslaughter.

What was not in issue

1. There was finally no issue between the parties that given the opinions of both Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt as to the nature of the impairments which Ms Wilson suffered at the time of Mr Shepstone's death and their consequences, that a verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental illness is not available to Ms Wilson. The onus falls on the accused to establish that defence, on the balance of probabilities: Mizzi v R (1960) 105 CLR 659; [1960] HCA 77.
2. "Mental illness" is not defined in the Forensic Provisions Act. What an accused must prove to establish such a defence, is that he or she was labouring under such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, that the accused did not know the quality and nature of the physical acts which he or she was doing, or alternatively, that if the accused did know, that he or she did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong: R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718; [1843 - 60] All ER 229; R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1.
3. In Porter it was said by Dixon J at 189-90: "The question is whether he was able to appreciate the wrongness of the particular act he was doing at the particular time. Could this man be said to know in this sense whether his act was wrong if through a disease or defect or disorder of the mind he could not think rationally of the reasons which to ordinary people make that act right or wrong? If through the disordered condition of the mind he could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure it may be said that he could not know that what he was doing was wrong. What is meant by "wrong"? What is meant by wrong is wrong having regard to the everyday standards of reasonable people."
4. In Ms Wilson's case, I am satisfied on the evidence that on 12 February 2013 she was able to understand the quality and nature of her physical acts and to appreciate the wrongness of what she did to Mr Shepstone, when she hit him with the metal pole and burnt him with boiling water. It follows, as the parties agreed, that Ms Wilson has no mental illness defence.
5. What was also not in issue included that the evidence: 1. Did not establish that Ms Wilson inflicted all of Mr Shepstone's blunt force injuries; 2. Established that: 1. Mr Shepstone died of hypovolemic shock, the result of there not being enough blood in his blood vessels to carry oxygen to his lungs and from his lungs to his brain, that being the combined effect of his bruising and burns; 2. When Ms Wilson burned Mr Shepstone with the boiling water, she intended to cause him really serious injury; and 3. Ms Wilson had a mental impairment.

What is in issue

1. What was finally in issue between the parties included: 1. Which of Mr Shepstone's blunt force injuries Ms Wilson caused; 2. Whether, when Ms Wilson hit Mr Shepstone with the metal pole, she intended to cause him serious physical injury; 3. How Mr Shepstone's burns were caused; 4. The order in which Ms Wilson inflicted Mr Shepstone's injuries; 5. Whether Ms Wilson acted with a consciousness of guilt when she cleaned up and failed to call assistance for Mr Shepstone, when he vomited; 6. Whether the Crown has proven beyond reasonable doubt that: 1. Ms Wilson did not act in self-defence; and 2. Was not acting under provocation.
2. The sequence in which Ms Wilson hit Mr Shepstone with the pole and burnt him and how she caused his burns, are relevant to the resolution of the issues lying between the parties about self-defence and provocation.
3. The Crown also did not concede that the Court would conclude that the partial defence of mental impairment was established.

The elements of the offences of murder and manslaughter

Murder

1. On the murder charge, what the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt is that Ms Wilson's voluntary acts or omissions caused Mr Shepstone's death and that she committed them: 1. Intending to inflict grievous bodily harm, that is really serious physical injury; 2. When not acting in self-defence; and 3. When not acting under provocation.
2. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson had the requisite intention, the defence of mental illness not being established: Hawkins v R (1994) 179 CLR 500 at 510, 512-514, 517; [1994] HCA 28. It is also for the Crown to disprove the defences of self-defence and provocation.
3. The partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind arises under s 23A of the Crimes Act. That defence is for Ms Wilson to establish on the balance of probabilities. Section 23A(1) provides that: "(1) A person who would otherwise be guilty of murder is not to be convicted of murder if: (a) at the time of the acts or omissions causing the death concerned, the person's capacity to understand events, or to judge whether the person's actions were right or wrong, or to control himself or herself, was substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition, and (b) the impairment was so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter."
4. "Underlying condition" is defined in s 23A(8) to mean "a pre-existing mental or physiological condition, other than a condition of a transitory kind." There is no issue between the parties that the evidence establishes that Ms Wilson had such underlying conditions, at the time of Mr Shepstone's death in February 2013.
5. Section 23A thus requires that if Ms Wilson would otherwise be liable to be convicted of murder, that she be convicted of manslaughter instead, if its conditions are satisfied. Whether she would otherwise be liable to be convicted of Mr Shepstone's murder, is in issue between the parties.

Manslaughter

1. The offence of manslaughter can be committed in a number of ways. In this case the elements which the Crown would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt are that: 1. Mr Shepstone's death was caused by Ms Wilson's acts; 2. Ms Wilson intended to commit those acts; 3. Ms Wilson's acts were unlawful; and 4. Ms Wilson's acts were dangerous.
2. Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act occurs where the accused causes the death of the deceased by a voluntary act that was unlawful and dangerous, such an act being one that a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated was an act that exposed another person to a risk of serious injury: Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31.

The cause of Mr Shepstone's death

1. While the concurrent evidence of the expert forensic pathologists, Dr Van Vuuren and Dr Duflou, established that Mr Shepstone's liver cirrhosis was so advanced in February 2013, that it could have led to his death at any time, it also established that the acts which Ms Wilson admitted, hitting Mr Shepstone with the metal pole and burning him with boiling water, with the result that he had burns to some 20% of his body, contributed to what actually caused his death on 12 February, namely, the consequences of hypervolemia.
2. While the burns experts, Professor Maitz and Associate Professor Vandervord, whose opinions were based on autopsy and crime scene photographs, came to different views as to the extent of Mr Shepstone's burns, namely 30% and 15% respectively, I am satisfied that the opinion of Dr Van Vuuren as to that matter, she having conducted the autopsy, must be preferred.

Ms Wilson's mental impairment

1. On 13 February 2013, Ms Wilson told both the ambulance officers and police about what had happened before Mr Shepstone died. She made three statements to police, after calling ambulance assistance. Her second police statement was recorded on a mobile phone and the third was electronically recorded: the ERISP.
2. While even on 13 February Ms Wilson was suffering various problems as the result of her physical ailments and mental impairments, including with her short term memory, the evidence establishes that some of what Ms Wilson said that day was, undoubtedly, correct. For example, that Mr Shepstone had been violent towards her in the past and that she had assaulted him the previous day. However, other things which she said were not correct. For example, that she had not been violent towards him in the past.
3. In order to resolve various of the matters in issue between the parties, however, it is necessary to take into account the nature of Ms Wilson's various physical ailments and her mental impairments, and their impact upon her, which the expert evidence establishes. It is also relevant to take into account that despite ongoing problems with her memory, which cannot have improved after February 2013, Ms Wilson has never denied hitting Mr Shepstone with a metal pole, or burning him with boiled water, prior to his death on 12 February.
4. The evidence establishes that Ms Wilson has an IQ of only 63 and that at the time of Mr Shepstone's death in 2013, she suffered not only a mild intellectual impairment and PTSD, but also vascular dementia, heart disease and diabetes. She has never been able to learn to read or write.
5. The reports of Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt, which record the histories which Ms Wilson later gave them in 2014 and 2015, explain both how she came to be so impaired and the consequences of those impairments.
6. Dr Furst's report records a history of Ms Wilson having been born in Yass, where she started school and was later placed into a girls home at Goulburn, where she was assaulted, before being fostered on a sheep station and finally placed in an orphanage in Sydney. She also suffered sexual abuse throughout her childhood, between the ages of 5 and 14 years, which resulted in her suffering gynaecological problems in her 20s. She received counselling and support from Anglicare in Wollongong, while she was in her 30s. She also recounted having suffered violence at Mr Shepstone's hands, which is supported by the evidence which I concluded in R v Wilson (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1680, established that he had a tendency to act violently towards her.
7. Ms Wilson's only admission for psychiatric treatment was at the Mirrabooka Unit after Mr Shepstone's death, but she also has a history of considerable abuse of alcohol and cannabis from age 20, with cannabis use virtually daily from age 25.
8. Dr Furst concluded that in February 2013 Ms Wilson was probably suffering PTSD as the result of Mr Shepstone's chronic violence, as well as the early stages of vascular dementia and a substance use disorder. Neurophysiological testing to quantify her level of cognitive impairment was later undertaken by Dr Hepman and Dr Pulman. That resulted in a diagnosis of mild intellectual incapacity and small vessel ischemia, infarct haemorrhage, as well as multiple small subcortical infarcts.
9. Dr Allnutt's report recorded a similar history. Dr Allnutt described his difficulty in 2015 in obtaining information from Ms Wilson, as a result, he considered, of her poor recollection, what appeared to be cultural issues and her limited ability to communicate her subjective experiences. Dr Allnutt agreed that in February 2013 Ms Wilson suffered PTSD, early vascular dementia, mild cognitive impairments and cannabis use disorder. In the result Dr Allnutt concluded that in February 2013, it was likely that Ms Wilson had cognitive problems of at least mild severity.
10. The result was that Dr Furst accepted that Ms Wilson was more impaired than he had initially considered and he and Dr Allnutt finally agreed in 2015, that she was not fit to be tried.
11. In their oral evidence at the special hearing Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt expanded on the opinions which they had earlier expressed, particularly in relation to the defences of self-defence, provocation and mental impairment, to which I will return.

Did Ms Wilson intend to cause Mr Shepstone serious injury when she hit him with the metal pole?

1. Both attending ambulance and police officers gave evidence of what Ms Wilson told them on 13 February 2013 about what she had done to Mr Shepstone. It was Ms Wilson who directed police to the metal pole which she had placed next to her bed, in her bedroom. She then admitted to having hit him with the pole "on the legs and bones". Their evidence of her 2013 accounts was all to similar effect, but those accounts differed markedly in their detail, from what Ms Wilson later told Dr Furst in 2014 and Dr Allnutt in 2015, as to what she had done to Mr Shepstone on 12 February 2013. Given Ms Wilson's impairments, it is likely that her earlier accounts were more accurate than those which she later gave.
2. Other evidence establishes that Ms Wilson could have injured Mr Shepstone much more seriously than she in fact did, when she hit him with the metal pole, had she wished, because it had a handle, it weighed some two kilograms and was some 570mm in length. The force which Ms Wilson used when she struck Mr Shepstone did not, however, cause any fractures, only bruising.
3. That, as well as the number of blows which she inflicted, which is in issue, are relevant to the question of whether Ms Wilson intended to cause Mr Shepstone serious injury, when she hit him with the metal pole. That, too, is in issue.
4. Mr Shepstone had some 65 blunt force injuries to his body, including external contusions or bruises, lacerations, abrasions and internal, large subcutaneous and muscular contusions or bruising. Mr Shepstone's liver disease had made him vulnerable to such bruising. The evidence establishes, however, that these injuries were not all caused by Ms Wilson, on 12 February 2013.
5. Given Ms Wilson's admissions to hitting Mr Shepstone with the metal pole and the opinions of the forensic pathologists, that only some of his bruises were recent and consistent with such blows, particularly the tramline bruises and the bruise on his palms, which it was conceded for Ms Wilson was consistent with a defensive injury - I am satisfied that the evidence has established, beyond reasonable doubt only that a limited number of Mr Shepstone's bruises were the result of Ms Wilson's blows. Further, that the injuries which Ms Wilson did inflict with that pole, can only have been the result of the use of relatively limited force.
6. The reasons for reaching these conclusions begin with Ms Wilson's statements, where she referred to Mr Shepstone having received treatment for his liver, which he had not followed up. Her statements do not establish that she was aware of how seriously ill he was, or of how vulnerable his condition made him to bruising. Police investigation established that he had not attended the Aboriginal Medical Centre, where he had earlier received treatment, since September 2011, although Ms Wilson told ambulance officers that Mr Shepstone's bags were packed, because he was going to hospital.
7. While Ms Wilson also had a history of drinking alcohol to excess, on her account she had not drunk alcohol since having suffered a heart attack in 2011, almost a year before. In her ERISP Ms Wilson said that Mr Shepstone had also stopped drinking alcohol, five days previously. Given her mental impairments and obvious short term memory problems, that this account was reliable, is questionable.
8. Mr Shepstone's liver disease was connected to his long history of drinking alcohol to considerable excess. In her ERISP Ms Wilson described him drinking casks of wine daily. Four litre casks were found at her home on 12 February 2013, as well as bottles of wine. She also spoke of him drinking casks of 5, 10 and 15 litres of wine. Other witnesses described him drinking daily to considerable excess for years, in terms which need not here be explained further. That history accords with the condition of Mr Shepstone's liver, in February 2013.
9. The expert evidence was that Mr Shepstone's long term alcoholism had also given him a propensity to fall, because of resulting abnormalities in brain functioning, given the toxic effects of alcohol over time. Intoxication itself can also make such a person fall. There was also evidence that as long ago as 2001, Mr Shepstone had attributed injuries to falls. On autopsy it was established that Mr Shepstone had no alcohol in his blood at the time of his death, which would probably have lessened his propensity to fall, at that time, but clearly would not have removed it.
10. That is because the expert evidence was that brain abnormalities caused by long term alcoholism can persist, including those which lead to a propensity to fall, even after alcohol consumption ceases. That is because a number of these conditions are irreversible. Given the extent of Mr Shepstone's bruises, however, it was considered to be unlikely that they were all the result of such falls.
11. The forensic pathologists also agreed that because of the condition of his liver, Mr Shepstone was vulnerable to bruising and he also had a predisposition to suffering oedema (swelling), especially in places where he was injured. Further, his severe liver disease had put him at risk of developing hypervolemia, even in the absence of any bruising.
12. The experts also agreed that some of Mr Shepstone's bruises had been caused more than 18 hours before his death, perhaps days before, because of their yellow colour, which indicates healing. While they also agreed that some of the bruises were recent, they did not agree about the timeframe in which others may have been caused, because on Dr Duflou's evidence, even dark blue or red bruising can persist for some days. Mr Shepstone had extensive yellow, as well as red and blue bruising, all over his body.
13. On Dr Van Vuuren's evidence, some of these bruises, such as those to Mr Shepstone's knees, which were also swollen, were consistent with injuries resulting from a fall and that others were not consistent with blows from the metal pole, such as the bruises on Mr Shepstone's abdominal wall. Dr Duflou also considered that various circular oval bruises, were not consistent with blows from the long metal pole.
14. Also necessary to take into account is that there is evidence of a history of arguing and violence between Mr Shepstone and Ms Wilson, throughout their relationship, including of blows which she struck, which were not a response to acts of violence on his part. There is also, however, evidence that he was the victim of assaults perpetrated by others, some very serious.
15. The evidence of one of Mr Shepstone's brothers was that Mr Shepstone had told him about being assaulted by others, who he associated with. He was often seen drinking to excess in public places such as bus stops, alleys and in the street, in the past at times in the company of Ms Wilson. Another brother described Mr Shepstone having been struck with a sword, resulting in serious lacerations to his arm and chest, which required hospitalisation for a month.
16. Although on 12 February Mr Shepstone stayed the night at Ms Wilson's home, where neighbours heard them arguing, which ceased at about 11pm, the evidence did not establish where Mr Shepstone was living in the days before his death.
17. At times Mr Shepstone lived in the streets, when he was not living with Ms Wilson, who another brother said would kick him out, when her son visited. Her son had also assaulted Mr Shepstone. The evidence of Mr Shepstone's mother included that her only interactions with Ms Wilson were short telephone calls, if Mr Shepstone went missing, or after Ms Wilson had got him to leave her house.
18. One neighbour described hearing Mr Shepstone and Ms Wilson argue at least once a fortnight, after which he would leave the following day with his bags. Sometimes he returned the same day. On one occasion he returned after a month and on another, some two years previously, he was gone for a lot longer, during which Ms Wilson said that he was in jail, after having assaulted her. Other neighbours had also heard arguing. On one occasion Mr Shepstone told a neighbour that he was upset, because he had to leave as the result of a restraining order.
19. All of this evidence must be considered in light of the experts' opinions, as to the age of Mr Shepstone's various bruises and that some of them could have been inflicted by fists or feet. They also agreed that injuries to Mr Shepstone's lips appeared to be relatively recent and that they could also have been the result of a punch, to which I will return.
20. The experts also considered that the bruising in general was the result of the application of moderate force, given the absence of any bone fractures. But that in the case of those inflicted by the metal pole, such as the tramline bruises, they considered that they could have been caused by the use of the metal pole, albeit with relatively little force.
21. Also necessary to consider is that Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt agreed that the nature of Ms Wilson's mental impairment was such that it adversely affected her ability to control herself. Despite this, the force which she used when she struck Mr Shepstone with the pole, was not enough to have caused any fractures, which could easily have resulted from the use of that pole.
22. When this is taken into account together with all of the other evidence I have discussed, I am satisfied that it must be concluded that the Crown has not established that on 12 February 2013, when Ms Wilson struck Mr Shepstone with the metal pole, she intended to cause him really serious injury.
23. Had that been Ms Wilson's intention, given the nature of the metal pole, the result of her blows would have been injuries much more serious than the further bruising which Mr Shepstone then suffered.

How Mr Shepstone's numerous burns were caused

1. The position is different in the case of the burns which Ms Wilson also caused on 12 February, to some 20% of Mr Shepstone's body.
2. While some of those burns were not serious, quite a number were. In the result there was no issue between the parties that when she inflicted those injuries, Ms Wilson did intend to cause Mr Shepstone really serious injury.
3. How Ms Wilson caused all of those burns and whether Mr Shepstone was standing, or lying when he was burnt, were in issue. The burns experts, Professor Maitz and Associate Professor Vandervord, did not agree about this. Nor could they, or Dr Van Vuuren or Dr Duflou, determine whether Ms Wilson struck Mr Shepstone before, or after he was burnt.

Ms Wilson's accounts

1. The first account which Ms Wilson gave to Ambulance Officer Ivins on 13 February, about the cause of the burns was that "[h]e had become violent and aggressive to me when I was making a hot drink in the morning, so I threw it at him". In cross-examination she said that this was a paraphrase of what Ms Wilson had then said, but she remembered her using the word "threw". Officer Ivins also remembered Ms Wilson then talking a lot about how Mr Shepstone used to suffocate her with a pillow and generally being very aggressive and abusive towards her.
2. In her oral evidence Officer Ivins said that the officers found Mr Shepstone lying naked on his back, covered by a doona, and covered in blisters. Afterwards, it occurred to her that Ms Wilson did not say whether it was a cup or the jug of water which she had thrown, but if it was either one or the other, in her view the water would not have splashed as extensively as the blisters on his body appeared to be.
3. Police later found a three litre kettle in the kitchen which was ¾ full, but that did not shed any light on what Ms Wilson had used to throw water on Mr Shepstone, because she had boiled water after she got up in the morning, before she tried to wake Mr Shepstone.
4. The electronic medical record which Ambulance Officer Brennan prepared on 13 February, which Officer Ivins also signed before they left the scene, was to somewhat different effect, but also involved Ms Wilson throwing the water. It recorded that Ms Wilson had stated that they "had an argument last night and she through (sic) boiling water over him" and that they had last spoke at 2am, while watching TV.
5. In his statement Officer Brennan gave a similar account, but also remembered Ms Wilson saying "[s]he gave as good as she got" and that Mr Shepstone had liver problems and was not compliant with doctors' orders for investigation, as well as asthma and drug and alcohol abuse. Officer Brennan was not required for cross-examination.
6. Senior Constable Bastin and Probationary Constable Romnacwicz then attended. Constable Bastin described Ms Wilson to have been extremely vague, having difficulty comprehending, crying and having problems answering her questions. She was unable to then give an account of what had happened.
7. When Detective Fort and Detective Senior Constable Briffa arrived some time later, Detective Fort sat with Ms Wilson, who then gave an account as to how she had burnt Mr Shepstone. The other officers present recollected her account being to similar effect.
8. Detective Fort's evidence included that Ms Wilson said: "Pearl tell me what happened last night and today?' Pearl said, "I hit Jason on the legs and bones with the bar and then I went to make a cup of tea and he was still arguing. I poured hot water on him. He grabbed my arm. I don't know if I was going to make tea cos there is no milk." I said, "Then what happened?" Pearl said, He layed [sic] down on the mattress and he was sick so I wiped it up" I said, "What did you wipe him up with?" She said, "A towel" I said, "What towel and where is it now?" Pearl said, "It's grey and it's in the laundry" I said, "Okay, what did he vomit up, what came out of his mouth?" Pearl said, "Blood and other stuff." I said, "Is that what you wiped up?" She said, "Yeah". I said, "Pearl you said he laid down on a mattress, is that the mattress he is on now?" She said, "No, he laid on a mattress in the kitchen" I said, "Pearl was he sick after or before you poured the hot water on him?" Pearl said, "After" I said, "The metal bar was in the bedroom. Did you go in to the bedroom to get the metal bar to hit him when you were arguing? She said, "No, it was in the other room" I said, "So you hit him with the bar and then you poured hot water on him and then he laid down on the mattress and was sick and you cleaned him up with the towel" Pearl said, "Yeah" I said, "What happened after that Pearl, was Jason talking to you?" She said, "No he went to sleep" I said, What did you do then Pearl?" Pearl said, "I laid down with Jason" I said, "Who went to sleep first Pearl?" She said, "Jason did".
9. Ms Wilson directed police to the metal pole found in her bedroom, while Detective Senior Constable Briffa remained with her. He described her as then being visibly upset. After Ms Wilson was arrested for assault, she said: "I hit him with the bar. I hit him on the legs and when I went to make a cup of tea, he was still arguing. I poured the water on him. He always hits me when we fight. We always fight."
10. Ms Wilson then walked away and police followed her. Ms Wilson next made the statement at the scene which was recorded on Detective Fort's phone. It was then recorded: "VOICE 1: PCSC FORT VOICE 2: PEARL WILSON "Q7 What happened last night? Tell me what you told me before. In your words. When you said you were arguing …. sit down that's alright. Remember when we talked before and you said you were arguing with Jason? A We were both arguing. Q8 Yep, you were both arguing, you were talking you said, not arguing? A Yeah Q9 Yep okay.... A Yep we were talking, Jason likes to raise his voice. Q10 Okay and then what happened? A Oh God. Q11 What did you tell me happened? You were telling him not to put his hands on you? A Yeah. Q12 And then what did you do? A I boiled the jug to make myself a cup of coffee and Jason come out to the kitchen and grabbing me Q13 Yep and where abouts? A Here (Pearl was indicating her arm). Q14 Yep A And I told him to let me go and he wouldn't let me go so I threw the water on him. Q15 Okay was the water hot or cold? A Hot. Q16 Hot? A Yeah I just boiled it for a cuppa. Q17 Okay. Whereabouts did you pour the water? A I just threw it all over Jason. Q18 You told me something about an iron bar, what did you tell me about that? A That I hit him with it, in the legs, in the bones. Q19 Okay. Was that before or after the water? A I dunno. Q20 Okay what did he do after you hit him with the bar and poured the water on him or threw the water on him? A He come hopping around to the kitchen when the jug was boiling. Q21 Yep and after you, after you poured him with the water where did he go? You said he went and sat down or layed down. A He sat on the mattress. Q22 Okay is that where he is now? A And then he was getting up, no that's a different mattress. Q23 Okay, right. A That other mattress is wet in the kitchen. Q24 Okay yep. A So I moved that mattress and fixed it up and I made a proper bed for him and then he fell on the floor and he was .. dunno what it was it was blood or spew all comin outta his mouth, and then I got him up and I layed him on the dry mattress and then I layed down beside him and cuddled him and went to sleep with him."
11. Detective Fort could not recollect what Ms Wilson had earlier said, which had prompted her say to her "you were telling him not to put his hands on you". On the evidence of the police officers, however, this must have reflected something Ms Wilson had said in her first unrecorded statement.
12. Ms Wilson was then taken to the police station, where she made further statements during the ERISP. When making this statement she could not, however, remember the details of what she had earlier said about assaulting Mr Shepstone.
13. Ms Wilson was then also asked how marks around her neck had been caused. She said that Mr Shepstone had grabbed her by the throat, yesterday, but she could not tell when, only that it was daytime. She was not sure if she had the TV or a DVD on, but said that he had grabbed her with only with one hand and that he had caused the marks to her knuckle, when he hit her with the iron bar, while they were probably watching "Deal or No Deal". She also said that he had hit her because "he has violence in him" and that they had been arguing about his nasty attitude, but that she had no other injuries.
14. On later examination by Dr Joliffe, however, Ms Wilson was found to have various injuries:

• Two haematomas on the back of the head;
• A bruise on the back of the neck;
• Abrasions below her nose, on her lip, in front of her left ear and on the back of her hands;
• Bruises on her right upper arm, which could have been caused by fingers;
• Two large bruises on her breast; and
• Bruises on her hands.

1. Dr Van Vuuren had considered photographs of some of these injuries. Her opinion was that only some of them were recent and could have been caused by Mr Shepstone - namely the abrasion near her ear, which could have been caused by a fingernail; the abrasion to her left jawline and neck; and the bruise to her hand, which could have been caused either by a blow struck with the metal pole, or by a punch.
2. When asked during the ERISP if Mr Shepstone had been violent on other occasions, Ms Wilson described him "bashin into me, tryin to strangle me" and that: "The reason I had the big bad heart attack is because Jason used to put the pillow over my face and suffocate me, or put his hands around my throat and strangle me, or ….. on the mattress, put my face onto the mattress where I can't breathe."
3. Ms Wilson denied having struck Mr Shepstone, but said that when there was violence, "once a week, once a day, twice a day", the majority of times she reported to police. However, she did not tell her son, but shut her mouth, because she thought it was "the right thing to do" and "like other woman that gets bashed by their man, keepin' it to themselves".
4. There is no evidence of Ms Wilson having made such frequent reports, but the evidence does establish that there were earlier occasions when reports were made to police and doctors, amongst others, of Mr Shepstone having put his hands around her throat; strangled her; put her face into a mattress; choked her; punched her, including to her breasts; as well as evidence that others had observed her with bruising to the arms and face and black eyes, which had led them to conclude that she was the victim of his violence. There had been similar conduct towards an earlier partner.
5. This evidence established, I was satisfied, that Mr Shepstone had a tendency to act in an aggressive or violent manner toward someone with whom he was in a relationship, including Ms Wilson in particular, consistently with the accounts which she gave about the events of 12 February 2013: see R v Wilson (No 3).
6. After the results of various forensic and other examinations were received, a decision was made to charge Ms Wilson with murder. She had, however, been earlier taken to Shoalhaven Hospital and then admitted to the Mirrabooka Mental Health Unit at Shellharbour Hospital, where she remained an inpatient for some time. On discharge her principal diagnosis was Grief Reaction and Organic Personality Disorder. She was then arrested and charged with murder and refused to make any further statement to police.
7. Ms Wilson later told Dr Furst, however, what had happened in February 2013 to have been: "… that Jason assaulted her on the day before he died. She said that she fell asleep on the lounge and woke up with a cushion in her face. She said, "I jumped up. I get confused. Everything happened so quick. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Jason tried to put my head in the toilet. I grabbed the bottle and hit him on foot. It all happened too quick … He had his hands around my throat. I poured hot water on him. I just wanted him not to touch me. I thought I was going to die at the time. He's done it before. I can't breathe when he puts his hands round my throat or the pillow over me." Ms Wilson added, "I hit him with the iron bar. He got it. He was holding on. I got it. I hit him. I think more than once. I was scared. Jason burnt my hand before by putting it in boiling fat. We went to bed together. I didn't think anyway was seriously wrong with Jason."

The opinions of the burns experts

1. On the evidence of Professor Maitz and Associate Professor Vandervord, who gave their evidence concurrently, the amount of water by which Mr Shepstone was burnt was less than two litres.
2. Given what the ambulance officers who found Mr Shepstone saw and what the autopsy later established as to the distribution and pattern of burns to many parts of his body, including to the back of his legs, there can be no doubt that Ms Wilson used more than a cup of water to burn Mr Shepstone and further, that there was more than one application of that water. In Professor Maitz's opinion, there could have been up to three separate applications. The experts agreed that some of the burns were consistent with water poured from a jug.
3. While the burns experts were unable to agree whether Mr Shepstone was standing or lying when he was burnt, they did agree that it was unlikely that he was sitting, because no water pooled in his lap. They also agreed that what Ms Wilson did on 12 February could have been dynamic, involving Mr Shepstone in different positions, at various points during the episode in which Ms Wilson burnt him with the water.
4. I am satisfied that the evidence as to the nature of Mr Shepstone's burns and where they were located establishes that while some of them could have been inflicted while Mr Shepstone was standing, as was Ms Wilson's 2013 accounts, others must have been inflicted while he was lying down.
5. That is established by the nature of the burns which are so widely distributed over Mr Shepstone's body, which includes, for example, a deep burn to the top of his shoulder, one near his armpit and burns to the back of his legs. Given their respective heights, Ms Wilson cannot have inflicted the burn to the top of Mr Shepstone's shoulder, had they both been standing. If she only threw the water at him in the kitchen, after he grabbed her arm, as was her first account, she could not have inflicted all of the burns he suffered, including those to the back of his legs.
6. That Mr Shepstone fell after Ms Wilson first burnt him is consistent not only with the location and nature of his various burns, including the most serious, but also Mr Shepstone's obvious ill health from his liver condition; the propensity to fall which his long term abuse of alcohol gave him; the extensive bruises which he had already suffered over his body before 12 February; and that throwing any near boiling water on him, as Professor Maitz explained, would have caused Mr Shepstone severe pain.
7. It was Ms Wilson's initial account that she responded to Mr Shepstone grabbing her arm, when she went into the kitchen, after she had hit him with the pole. While Professor Maitz considered it likely that all of the burns were inflicted while Mr Shepstone was on the ground, even he agreed that the severe burn to Mr Shepstone's right forearm could have been inflicted when Ms Wilson poured water on his arm, either from a cup or the kettle, after he had grabbed her in the kitchen.
8. It is also possible that he could have raised his arm while lying down, in order to protect his face from water which Ms Wilson poured over him, as was Professor Maitz's conclusion. It is impossible to know which part of his body was burnt first, or the time frame within which all of the burns were inflicted. On Ms Wilson's 2013 accounts, however, these burns were an instinctive response to Mr Shepstone grabbing her, after she had struck him with the pole. That accords with the evidence of the history of past violence between she and Mr Shepstone, his tendency and her injuries.
9. Given the nature of the burns, it is also possible that Mr Shepstone was burnt in some places more than once by Ms Wilson's separate applications of near boiling water and the splashing which they caused. What is undoubted is that even from the first application of that water, however, the pain caused by the burns, when combined with his other injuries, was sufficient to prevent Mr Shepstone from taking the normal course Professor Maitz described, namely, getting into a cold shower.
10. In the result, while I am satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson burnt Mr Shepstone more than once, it does not establish that all of the burns were inflicted while Mr Shepstone was lying down.

Was Mr Shepstone struck before he was burnt?

1. Neither the forensic pathologists nor the burns experts could determine whether Mr Shepstone had been burnt before, or after he was struck with the pole.
2. Ms Wilson has given conflicting accounts about that, but as I explained, her 2013 accounts are more likely to be accurate than those which she gave in 2014 and 2015, the latter being the source of the idea that she may have struck Mr Shepstone after she burnt him.
3. While it is impossible to be certain as to all that occurred on 12 February 2013 between Ms Wilson and Mr Shepstone, on the evidence it is likely that Ms Wilson struck Mr Shepstone before she burnt him. The evidence does not establish that the bruising alone would have so incapacitated Mr Shepstone, that he could not have grabbed Ms Wilson in the kitchen, as was her account, after she struck him with the pole.
4. Given the intense pain which the burns would have caused and the normal response to such burns, of getting into a cold shower, when considered together with Mr Shepstone's general ill health, his propensity to falls, and the bruising which he had already suffered, it seems unlikely, however, that Ms Wilson struck him with the pole in the way I have described, only after she had burnt him.
5. Given the experts' evidence as to the severe pain which those burns would have caused, it also seems unlikely that Mr Shepstone could have posed any further threat to Ms Wilson, after he was first burnt. It is thus more likely on all of the evidence I have discussed, that Mr Shepstone collapsed after he was first burnt, having earlier been struck by the pole, with the result that after being burnt further, he could not get up, but lay on the ground vomiting, as was Ms Wilson's 2013 account. Ms Wilson then cleaned him up, in the way that she also then described.
6. That would also account for Mr Shepstone's damp clothing, the cleaning cloths and products and the towel found by police, in the place Ms Wilson then indicated, as well as the second mattress propped against the wall in the dining room. This also accorded with Ms Wilson's accounts on 13 February, that she had helped Mr Shepstone move to the second mattress. That he was found lying on this mattress the next day, naked and covered by a doona, is also consistent with those accounts.
7. That Ms Wilson struck Mr Shepstone first, after which he followed her to the kitchen and grabbed her, is also consistent with their past history of violent behaviour towards each other, as was Ms Wilson defending herself, by throwing what she had to hand at the time: the recently boiled water. So, too, are Ms Wilson's injuries.
8. In the result, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that Ms Wilson struck Mr Shepstone after she burnt him.

Self-defence

1. On the murder charge it is for the Crown to eliminate self-defence as an issue, by proving beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries Ms Wilson inflicted, were not inflicted in self-defence.
2. To do this the Crown must first prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson did not believe, at the time that she struck Mr Shepstone with the pole and injured him with the boiling water, that it was necessary to do what she did, in order to defend herself. The Crown must also prove that what Ms Wilson did was not a reasonable response in the circumstances, as she perceived them.
3. The two questions which must thus be resolved are: 1. Has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson did not believe at the time she injured Mr Shepstone that it was necessary to do what she did in order to defend herself? 2. Has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that hitting Mr Shepstone with the pole and throwing and pouring water over him, more than once, was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as Ms Wilson perceived them?
4. If the answer to the first question is "Yes", then, provided all of the other elements of the offence have been proved, the Court's verdict must be "on the limited evidence available Ms Wilson is guilty of murder".
5. If the answer to the first question is "No", but the answer to the second question is "Yes", provided all of the other elements have been proved, the verdict must be "on the limited evidence available Ms Wilson is not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter".
6. If the answers to both questions are "No", then the verdict must be "on the limited evidence available Ms Wilson is not guilty of murder or of manslaughter".
7. On all of the evidence I have discussed, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the first question must be answered no and the second question yes.
8. The first question requires consideration of the evidence of the circumstances on 12 February 2013, when Ms Wilson seriously injured Mr Shepstone, as Ms Wilson perceived them to be. Account must thus be taken not only of the evidence of what Ms Wilson did to Mr Shepstone, but also of the history of aggression between them and the consequences of Ms Wilson's mental impairments, which all bear on Ms Wilson's perception of the circumstances which unfolded that night and on the belief which she then formed, about what it was necessary for her to do.
9. It is Ms Wilson's perception which must be considered and not what someone else might have perceived. This cannot be looked at with the benefit of hindsight, which might suggest that Ms Wilson was mistaken in believing that it was necessary to do all that she did to Mr Shepstone. The law accepts that calm reflection cannot always be expected in a situation such as that in which Ms Wilson found herself to be.
10. The second question also requires consideration to be given to whether Ms Wilson's response was unreasonable or excessive in those circumstances. That is a matter for my judgment. It does not depend on whether Ms Wilson thought her response was reasonable. All aspects of her response, including the nature, degree and means by which she injured Mr Shepstone must be taken into account. The critical question is: has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was not a reasonable response?
11. While members of Mr Shepstone's family gave accounts in their evidence of not having seen Mr Shepstone being violent towards Ms Wilson; she always being the aggressor, on the few occasions they saw them together; and Mr Shepstone having attributed injuries which they saw to Ms Wilson's violence towards him, as I have explained, I am satisfied that the evidence establishes not only that during their relationship Ms Wilson and Mr Shepstone had repeatedly been both verbally aggressive and violent towards each other, but also that Mr Shepstone had a tendency to act violently, particularly towards Ms Wilson.
12. Ms Wilson's accounts that on 12 February 2013 she had reacted to Mr Shepstone's violence was supported not only by the evidence of the arguing which neighbours had heard, but also by Mr Shepstone's tendency and by the injuries which Ms Wilson suffered.
13. As I have also explained, the evidence did not establish that Ms Wilson inflicted all of Mr Shepstone's bruises on 12 February 2013, or that when Ms Wilson then struck Mr Shepstone with the pole, she intended to injure him seriously. It does, however, establish that when she burnt him more than once, she did have that intention.
14. Mr Shepstone is likely to have been seriously injured before 11pm, because neighbours heard no more arguing, after that time. By the way that she burnt him, Ms Wilson plainly succeeded in bringing the altercation which neighbours heard that night to a halt. Had Mr Shepstone still then been capable of retaliating, it is likely that he would have done so and that Ms Wilson would likely have suffered more serious injuries than she in fact did suffer.
15. The evidence, as I have explained, does not establish the timeframe within which all of the burns were inflicted, but what Ms Wilson did is consistent with her having acted in the course of one episode, during which she lost her self-control, consistent with the evidence of Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt, as to the consequences of her mental impairments on her ability to exercise such self-control.
16. On all of this evidence, I am satisfied that the Crown has not established beyond reasonable doubt that on 12 February 2013, Ms Wilson did not strike Mr Shepstone with the pole and inflicted at least some of his burns, in response to his violence.
17. Given the nature of Ms Wilson's impairments and their impact on her functioning, it must be accepted that she believed, at the time that she struck Mr Shepstone with the pole and at least when she first threw the boiling water at him, that her actions were necessary, in order to defend herself.
18. Consideration must also be given, however, to the evidence which establishes beyond reasonable doubt, as I have explained, that Ms Wilson also poured more boiling water on Mr Shepstone, after he was on the ground.
19. But for the consequences of her mental impairments, I would also have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that when Ms Wilson poured more boiling water over Mr Shepstone, after he had fallen to the ground, she was not acting in self-defence.
20. Given the consequences of her mental impairments, however, I am not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson did not then believe that her actions were necessary, in order to defend herself.
21. In coming to that conclusion account had to be taken of the fact that the opinions of Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt did not rest only on the histories which Ms Wilson had provided them, but also upon the results of their respective clinical examinations, the results of the MRI and CT examinations of her brain and the results of other testing, administered by other experts.
22. It was Dr Furst's opinion that in February 2013 Ms Wilson's intellectual impairments, which are likely to have been with her from birth and could have been contributed to by insults to her brain, suffered over the course of her life, meant that she then fell within the bottom 1% of the population in intellectual functioning. Further trauma which she had experienced during the course of her life, including at Mr Shepstone's hands, had made her vulnerable to the PTSD she had by then developed and her vascular dementia, also developed over the course of many years, had all resulted in further adverse impact on her cognitive functioning.
23. In Dr Furst's view, these impairments had not only affected Ms Wilson's ability to control herself, they could also have resulted in disinhibited and aggressive behaviour and in her being less tolerant, when provoked. Her dementia had also affected her ability to describe what had happened, as did the effects of her intellectual disability and PTSD. This all helps explain why it was that the accounts which she gave Dr Furst in 2014 and Dr Allnutt in 2015, differed so markedly from what she had described in 2013.
24. Dr Furst also considered that even if Ms Wilson had, as I have found, applied boiling water to Mr Shepstone more than once, while he was lying down, that because of her impairments, her perceptions and fear of harm are likely to have persisted, even if he was then not capable of harming her.
25. Dr Allnutt reached similar conclusions. He considered that in 2013, while Ms Wilson retained the capacity to understand events and to know right from wrong, she did not then have the capacity to control herself.
26. The Crown contended that after she had injured Mr Shepstone, Ms Wilson had acted in a way that showed her consciousness of guilt, namely by helping Mr Shepstone to lie on another mattress, cleaning up, and lying down with him, rather than calling for an ambulance, when he vomited. Dr Allnutt, however, considered Ms Wilson's behaviour to have been typical of the behaviour of people involved in abusive domestic relationships. He described such behaviour as involving an ongoing, repetitive cycle of aggression, regret, reconciliation and sleep. That cycle accords with the history of Ms Wilson and Mr Shepstone's relationship.
27. The evidence also does not establish that in 2013, Ms Wilson was aware of the serious condition of Mr Shepstone's liver, or that even without extensive bruising and burns, he was at risk of imminent death. She obviously caused him serious injury when she burnt him, as she did, but on the experts' evidence, given the nature and extent of her impairments, that she cleaned up and cared for him herself, before going to sleep with him, rather than calling for an ambulance, does not necessarily establish that Ms Wilson then had a consciousness of guilt.
28. Dr Allnutt could not exclude the possibility that Ms Wilson had exaggerated the accounts she had given of Mr Shepstone's conduct on 12 February 2013, but on balance, he considered that the impact of her low IQ and intellectual functioning, PTSD and vascular dementia were consistent with her conduct and the accounts which she gave.
29. I consider that the experts' opinions must be accepted. They not only help explain why the relationship between Ms Wilson and Mr Shepstone persisted as it did, despite the aggressive and violent behaviour they pursued towards each other, but they also explain Ms Wilson's actions on 12 February 2013. There was unarguably a considerable loss of control involved in the way that Ms Wilson burnt Ms Shepstone more than once that night which is, nevertheless, consistent with Ms Wilson then acting in accordance with her belief, that all of her actions were necessary, to defend herself. That belief was consistent with the consequences of all of her serious ailments and impairments.
30. In the result, the first question, has the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson did not believe at the time she injured Mr Shepstone that it was necessary to do what she did in order to defend herself, I am satisfied must be answered no.
31. However, I am satisfied that the second question must be answered yes.
32. As I have explained, pouring more near boiling water on Mr Shepstone after Ms Wilson first threw water on him, must have resulted in him falling to the ground, in considerable pain and unable to get up to get into a cold shower or to obtain other assistance. Then she poured more water on him, totalling considerably more than a cup of water. The pain caused by the burns which she thereby inflicted, some of them very severe, to some 20% of his body, was substantial.
33. All of that conduct must, in the circumstances I have explained, result in the conclusion that what Ms Wilson then did was, undoubtedly, unreasonable and excessive, notwithstanding Mr Shepstone's tendency, his conduct to that point that night and even the nature of their past relationship.
34. No matter that Ms Wilson, impaired as she then was, might have thought that her response was reasonable in the circumstances, given that she poured more boiling water on Mr Shepstone, as he lay on the ground, considerably affected as he must already have been by the pain which had resulted from the burns he had already suffered, that her response was not reasonable, but excessive, has been established beyond reasonable doubt. As was the Crown case, at that point Ms Wilson moved from self-defence to unreasonable and excessive retaliation.
35. All of the evidence I have discussed, I am satisfied, must thus result in question 2 being answered no. In the result the Court's verdict must be that on the limited evidence available Ms Wilson is not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

Provocation

1. Having come to this conclusion, it is unnecessary to deal with either provocation or the defence of mental impairment, but in the circumstances, I should indicate the conclusions which I would have reached about those matters, had I not come to the conclusion I have reached about self-defence.
2. On the evidence I have discussed, had I found that the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Wilson had not acted in self-defence, I would have concluded that it had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that she had not acted under provocation.
3. An act causing death is an act done under provocation where: 1. The act is the result of a loss of self-control on the part of the accused that was induced by any conduct of the deceased towards or affecting the accused; and 2. That conduct of the deceased was such that it could have induced an ordinary person in the position of the accused to have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intent to kill, or to inflict grievous bodily harm upon, the deceased, whether the conduct of the deceased occurred immediately before the act causing death, or at any previous time.
4. Two questions arise, the first: could Mr Shepstone's conduct, that is, the things he did or said, or both, have caused Ms Wilson to lose her self-control?
5. Whether Ms Wilson was still acting under a loss of control, even after she first burnt Mr Shepstone must be considered, given that I have concluded that her conduct then involved retaliation, not just self-defence. Consideration must also be given to whether Ms Wilson was then acting impulsively, even though Mr Shepstone must have been immobilised by her first application of the near boiling water. That depends on the timeframe during which she acted, about which there was no evidence.
6. It was Dr Allnutt who described the physical changes to Ms Wilson's brain revealed by the CT scans and MRI, which established that she suffered vascular dementia in 2013. While that and her other conditions had not precluded her from forming the intent to cause serious injury, Dr Allnutt explained that her conduct may have been motivated by a combination of reasons, involving fear, self-defence and even revenge, her conditions having made her vulnerable to losing control of her actions. Dr Furst agreed.
7. I am satisfied that the evidence I have discussed does establish that there was a causal connection between Mr Shepstone's violence towards Ms Wilson, including that which occurred on 12 February 2013 and her loss of self-control that day, to which her mental impairments made her vulnerable. That loss of control did not cease when she first burnt Mr Shepstone. As Dr Furst explained, even after she first burnt Ms Shepstone, her actions during the course of conduct which she pursued during the entirety of this episode, were affected by the consequences of her considerable impairments, so as to be the result of her loss of control.
8. The second question is: could Mr Shepstone's conduct have induced an ordinary person in the position of Ms Wilson to have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intent to kill, or inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr Shepstone?
9. Such an "ordinary person" is one who has the minimum powers of self-control expected of an ordinary citizen who is sober, of the same age and level of maturity as Ms Wilson "unaffected by the personal characteristics or attributes of the particular accused": Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 327; [1990] HCA 61. The effect of provocation on such an ordinary person in the position of Ms Wilson means an ordinary person who has been provoked to the same degree of severity and for the same reason as she was.
10. On the evidence I have discussed, I am satisfied that Mr Shepstone's conduct on 12 February 2013, considered in light of the nature of the relationship he and Ms Wilson had, their past history of considerable violence and his tendency to violence, was conduct which did not only give rise to a sense of grievance or revenge, which "will not suffice": Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 167; [1986] HCA 76.
11. On all of that evidence, I am also satisfied that the question of whether Mr Shepstone's conduct could have induced an ordinary person in the position of Ms Wilson to have so far lost self-control as to have formed an intent to inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr Shepstone, that is seriously injure him, must be answered yes.
12. In that event, the verdict would also have been that on the limited evidence available, Ms Wilson is not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

The partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind

1. As I noted earlier, there is no issue between the parties that in February 2013, Ms Wilson's capacity to control herself, were substantially impaired by an abnormality of mind arising from the underlying conditions about which Dr Furst and Dr Allnutt gave evidence.
2. I, too, am satisfied by that evidence that Ms Wilson then suffered such impairment, the result of her underlying conditions.
3. I am also satisfied that the evidence which I have discussed also establishes that the combined effects of Ms Wilson's various significant impairments on her ability to function, some of them of lifelong duration, were in February 2013 so substantial as to warrant her liability for murder to be reduced from murder to manslaughter, had I concluded that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt all of the elements of the murder charge.
4. The evidence establishes that Mr Shepstone's imminent death from liver cirrhosis was hastened by Ms Wilson's actions, but they must be understood in the context of the very substantial impairments from which she was then suffering.
5. Had Ms Wilson not suffered the considerable adverse consequences which those impairments had upon her, her conduct would unarguably have warranted her conviction of Mr Shepstone's murder. The law, however, would require that proper account also be taken of those consequences, from which Ms Wilson then suffered through no fault of her own, in order for justice to be properly served.
6. In those circumstances the proper verdict would also have been that on the limited evidence available, Ms Wilson was not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

Orders

1. For these reasons, I order that a verdict be entered that on the limited evidence available, Ms Wilson is not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.

Amendments 14 December 2017 - [127] typographical error DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 14 December 2017