Legal Research
Cases
A.N v Regina (No. 2)

A.N v Regina (No. 2)

Case [2006] NSWCCA 218 24 July 2006

Mental Health Legislation

Judicial Review

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
163 A Crim R 133
66 NSWLR 523

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: A.N (No. 2) v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 218
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 3 May 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 July 2006

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Simpson J at 88; Rothman J at 89

DECISION: Order pursuant to s 24(1)(b) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act effective from 6 July 2005 and until further order that the applicant be detained in the Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Detention Centre.; Order pursuant to s 27(b) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act that the applicant be henceforth detained during the limiting terms in a Juvenile Justice Detention Centre. The Court recommends that the applicant be detained in the Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Detention Centre.

CATCHWORDS: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 - s.24(1)(b) - s 27(b) extent of power - whether discretion to make an order - whether Court can make order that part only of a limiting term be served in custody or detention.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s. 61J
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 - ss 11, 24
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 2
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 43
Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987

CASES CITED: Erceg v The District Court of NSW [2003] NSWCA 379
L. Shaddock & Associates Pty Limited v Parramatta City Council (No. 2) (1982) 151 CLR 590
Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431
R v Carrion (2002) 128 A Crim R 29
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Allen (1994) 1 Qd R 526
R v De Zylva (1998) 38 A Crim R 207
Re Cripps ex parte Muldoon [1984] 1 QB 686
R v Jovanovic (1996) 106 A Crim R 548
R v Reardon (2004) 146 A Crim R 475
Mailes v Director of Public Prosecutions and Mental Health Review Tribunal (unreported) Hulme J at 10 April 2000
R v Adams (2003) 58 NSWLR 1
R v Tas (District Court 1 Oct. 1997)
R v Boyle (unreported Matthews J 18/9/92)
R v Mailes (2004) 62 NSWLR 181
R v Mitchell (1999) 108 A Crim R 85

PARTIES: A.N
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/582

COUNSEL: D. Woodburne - Crown
R. Burgess - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/1234

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McGuire DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 29 April 2004

- 27 -

2005/582

JAMES J
SIMPSON J
ROTHMAN J
24 July 2006

A.N (No. 2) v REGINA

Judgment

1 JAMES J: In this matter the Court has already given one judgment R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239. The present judgment is to be read in conjunction with the judgment already given.

2 In order to explain the issues remaining to be determined by the Court, it is…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A.N v Regina (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: A.N v Regina (No. 2) [2006] NSWCCA 218
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 218
Decision Date: 24 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

A.N, the appellant, challenged the decision of the District Court of New South Wales, which convicted him and ordered his detention in a mental health facility. The appeal before the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal raised questions about the extent of the court's discretion under sections 24(1)(b) and 27(b) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. The central issue was whether the court has the authority to mandate that only a portion of a limiting term be served in custody or detention, as opposed to the entirety of the term. This issue required a careful examination of statutory interpretation and the inherent jurisdiction of the court in sentencing matters.

The court considered whether the language of the statute permitted such a partial custodial order and whether any such power was within the bounds of the court's discretion. The court delved into the legislative intent behind the sections, reviewing relevant case law and statutory construction principles. It found that the plain language of the Act did not explicitly confer the discretion to order partial custody, and that such a power would represent a significant departure from the legislative framework intended to ensure comprehensive mental health treatment for offenders. The court concluded that the statutory scheme did not support the exercise of such discretion.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the District Court. The appellant was to serve the entirety of the limiting term in custody or detention, as ordered. This outcome reinforced the principle that the court's powers under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act are constrained by legislative intent, and that any deviation from this intent requires clear statutory authority.

Orders