Exercise 017 | Law

Exercise 017

Mental Health: DPP v Mills [2000] NSWCA 236 (31 August 2000)

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. How would you cite the case?
  2. Who were the judges?
  3. Who represented the first opponent and why?
  4. What were the material facts of the case?
  5. What type of case was this? Appellate, first instance, civil, criminal?
  6. Was this a unanimous decision?
  7. Whose decision was final?
  8. What happens to the case now?
  9. What does it mean to say that 'errors identified appear on the face of the Judge's reasons, and therefore on the face of the record'?
  10. Explain the following terms (using your legal dictionary):
    1. prerogative relief
    2. anor
    3. jurisdiction
    4. certiori/certiorari
    5. extempore

More difficult questions

  1. What grounds did counsel for the claimant give for the appeal?
  2. Why were the judges in this case required to look at the reasons for the decision of the previous case?
  3. What are the requirements that can lead to the grant of a special hearing?
  4. If a special hearing is granted, what is its purpose? What are the verdicts that are available?
  5. What was the final outcome of the case? Whose decision had the most weight? Why?
  6. What is a limiting term? What is its purpose?
  7. What is the process involved in a special hearing to determine if an accused person is guilty; not guilty due to mental illness; guilty on the limited evidence available or guilty on the limited evidence available of another offence?

Complex questions

  1. What was Handley JA's criticism of the trial judge's reasons for decision in determining not to conduct an enquiry, to dismiss the charge and order the opponent released? What were his reasons for this?
  2. Meagher JA had different reasons for coming to his decision to that of the other two judges.
    1. What problems did he have with the decision of the trial judge?
    2. In what way did he disagree with the argument of Handley and Sheller JA?
  3. What case/s did Handley JA refer to in determining the requirements of a decision of insanity? Did he follow, apply or distinguish it/them?
  4. What do you think of the reasoning of the different judges? Do you agree/disagree with their decisions?
  5. Does this decision follow precedent or does it change the law in some way?
  6. Do you think there is a rule this case stands for?