Bailiff v The Queen

[2011] ACTCA 7

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BARKER BAILIFF v THE QUEEN [2011] ACTCA 7 (25 February 2011)

APPEAL – appeal as to the finding of the appellant’s fitness to plead – whether the primary judge erred in her consideration of the criteria she was required to take into account in deciding whether the appellant was fit to plead to the charge – held that there was no appealable error in the approach of the primary judge – appeal dismissed

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 311, s 312
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 52

R v Bailiff [2010] ACTSC 54
R v Bailiff [2004] ACTSC 42
R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1
R v Steurer (2009) 3 ACTLR 272
Evans v The Queen (2007) 82 ALJR 250
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Murphy and Murdoch v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 94

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 29 of 2010
No. SCC 139 of 2009

Judges:         Marshall J, Nield and Teague AJJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            25 February 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 29 of 2010
  )          No. SCC 139 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BARKER BAILIFF

Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Marshall J, Nield and Teague AJJ
Date:  25 February 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 29 of 2010
  )          No. SCC 139 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BARKER BAILIFF

Appellant

AND: THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Marshall J, Nield and Teague AJJ
Date:  25 February 2011
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. This proceeding concerns a challenge to the finding of a single judge of the Court below (“the primary judge”) that Mr Bailiff is fit to plead to a charge laid against him. At the commencement of the oral hearing, counsel were agreed that there was doubt as to whether leave to appeal was required to be given for this Court to consider the appeal. The approach commended to the Court by both counsel, and adopted by it, was to grant leave to appeal in case such leave were required and deal with the matter of the appeal substantively. Accordingly, we granted leave to appeal and heard the appeal on 18 February 2011.

1. Mr Bailiff has been charged with one count of intentionally damaging property on 30 January 2009. The Crown alleges that Mr Bailiff dropped a large rock on the front windscreen of a vehicle used by Mr Gerald Franks and subsequently dropped the rock on the rear windscreen of that vehicle. Damage occurred to each windscreen. The…