AG v B - [2001] QCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: AG v B [2001] QCA 169

PARTIES:
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
v
B

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:
CA No 269 of 2000
SC No 407 of 1999 (Townsville)

[2000] QMHT

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Mental Health Tribunal

ORIGINATING COURT:
Mental Health Tribunal

DELIVERED ON: 11 May 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 28 February 2001

JUDGES:
McPherson JA, Ambrose J, Wilson J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; McPherson JA and Wilson J concurring as to the orders made, Ambrose J dissenting

ORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed.

2. Decision and orders of the Mental Health Tribunal on 14 September 2000 set aside.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ACCUSED UNFIT TO PLEAD OR BECOMING INCAPABLE DURING TRIAL – where jury found that accused had capacity to understand proceedings – where Mental Health Tribunal found accused not fit for trial – whether Mental Health Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine fitness for trial subsequent to jury determination in the affirmative

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – whether accused properly called upon to plead to indictment where he was arraigned upon only one of six counts contained in indictment – whether jury was entitled to consider whether accused capable of understanding proceedings in respect of all counts on indictment

MENTAL HEALTH - DECLARATION OF FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY - where jury found that accused had capacity to understand proceedings – where Mental Health Tribunal found accused not fit for trial – whether Mental Health Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine fitness for trial subsequent to jury determination in the affirmative

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32C(a)
Criminal Code (Qld), s 27, s 592, s 592A, s 594, s 604(1), s 613, s 668D(1), s 668E(1)
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 42, r 43, r 46(a)
Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 60, s 61, s 62
Mental Health Act 1974 (Qld), s 28, s 28A, s 28C, s 28D(1), s 28E(4), s 33, s 34(1), s 34A(2), s 38, s 43A

Eastman v R (2000) 200 ALJR 915, applied.
Essex County Council v Essex Incorporated Congressional Church Union [1963] AC 808, applied.
Gould v Brown (1998) 193 CLR 346 at 419, 451, applied.
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230, applied.
Ngatayi v R (1980) 147 CLR 1, applied.
R v Enright [1990] 1 Qd R 563, applied.
R v House [1986] 2 Qd R 415, applied.
R v Martin [1973] VR 339, considered.
R v Miles [1955] QWN 29, applied.
R v Presser [1958] VR 45, considered.
R v Stevenson (1791) 2 Leach 546, considered.
R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364, applied.
R v Wilson [1998] 2 Qd R 599, considered.
RAP v AEP & Another [1982] 2 NSWLR 508, applied.
Re Bromage [1991] 1 Qd R 1, applied.
Re Topp [2000] QMHT, applied.
Welsh v Anderson (1902) 5 WALR…

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 AG v B

Details

AGLC: AG v B [2001] QCA 169
Case: [2001] QCA 169
Decision Date: 11 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of AG v B, the High Court was asked to consider the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to determine the fitness of an accused for trial after a jury had already found that the accused had the capacity to understand the proceedings. The accused was charged with multiple counts, but during the trial, it was found that he was unfit to plead or had become incapable during the trial. The issue before the court was whether the Mental Health Tribunal could make a subsequent determination of fitness to stand trial after the jury had already found the accused fit to proceed.

The court examined the statutory framework and the relevant case law to determine the proper procedure in such cases. It held that the Mental Health Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the fitness of an accused for trial at any time, including after a jury had found the accused fit to understand the proceedings. The court also found that the accused was properly called upon to plead to all counts in the indictment, and the jury was entitled to consider his capacity in relation to all counts.

The High Court concluded that the Mental Health Tribunal's determination on 14 September 2000 was incorrect in law, and thus set it aside. The court allowed the appeal and provided its reasoning and orders in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Decision and orders of the Mental Health Tribunal on 14 September 2000 set aside.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	AG v B [2001] QCA 169
PARTIES:	THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant) v B (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 269 of 2000 SC No 407 of 1999 (Townsville) [2000] QMHT
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal from the Mental Health Tribunal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Mental Health Tribunal
DELIVERED ON:	11 May 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 February 2001
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Ambrose J, Wilson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; McPherson JA and Wilson J concurring as to the orders made, Ambrose J dissenting
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Decision and orders of the Mental Health Tribunal on 14 September 2000 set aside.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – ACCUSED UNFIT TO PLEAD OR BECOMING INCAPABLE DURING TRIAL – where jury found that accused had capacity to understand proceedings – where Mental Health Tribunal found accused not fit for trial – whether Mental Health Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine fitness for trial subsequent to jury determination in the affirmative CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – INFORMATION, INDICTMENT OR PRESENTMENT – whether accused properly called upon to plead to indictment where he was arraigned upon only one of six counts contained in indictment – whether jury was entitled to consider whether accused capable of understanding proceedings in respect of all counts on indictment MENTAL HEALTH - DECLARATION OF FINDING OF MENTAL ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY - where jury found that accused had capacity to understand proceedings – where Mental Health Tribunal found accused not fit for trial – whether Mental Health Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine fitness for trial subsequent to jury determination in the affirmative Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32C(a) Criminal Code (Qld), s 27, s 592, s 592A, s 594, s 604(1), s 613, s 668D(1), s 668E(1) Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 42, r 43, r 46(a) Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 60, s 61, s 62 Mental Health Act 1974 (Qld), s 28, s 28A, s 28C, s 28D(1), s 28E(4), s 33, s 34(1), s 34A(2), s 38, s 43A Eastman v R (2000) 200 ALJR 915, applied. Essex County Council v Essex Incorporated Congressional Church Union [1963] AC 808, applied. Gould v Brown (1998) 193 CLR 346 at 419, 451, applied. Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230, applied. Ngatayi v R (1980) 147 CLR 1, applied. R v Enright [1990] 1 Qd R 563, applied. R v House [1986] 2 Qd R 415, applied. R v Martin [1973] VR 339, considered. R v Miles [1955] QWN 29, applied. R v Presser [1958] VR 45, considered. R v Stevenson (1791) 2 Leach 546, considered. R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364, applied. R v Wilson [1998] 2 Qd R 599, considered. RAP v AEP & Another [1982] 2 NSWLR 508, applied. Re Bromage [1991] 1 Qd R 1, applied. Re Topp [2000] QMHT, applied. Welsh v Anderson (1902) 5 WALR…