CHANG -v- TURNER [2005] WASC 246

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASC 246
Case No:	SJA:1068/2005	Heard:	20 OCTOBER 2005
Coram:	HASLUCK J	Delivered:	15/11/05
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	YAO NAN CHANG CHRISTOPHER GRAEME TURNER
Catchwords:	Criminal law Defendant mentally unfit to stand trial Criteria for making a custody order Whether Magistrate gave adequate weight to the precept that a custody order must not be made unless it is appropriate Whether sufficient consideration given to statutory criteria The making of a custody order upheld
Legislation:	Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 16
Case References:	Australian Securities Commission v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (1996) 70 FCR 93 Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226 GFS v The Queen [2001] WASCA 219 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Betts v Hardcastle (2001) 23 WAR 559 Dicks v Farrell [2001] WASCA 124 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 O'Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210 R v Gardiner (No 3) (2000) 24 SR (WA) 136 R v Garlett [2002] WADC 87

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : CHANG -v- TURNER [2005] WASC 246 CORAM : HASLUCK J HEARD : 20 OCTOBER 2005 DELIVERED : 15 NOVEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : SJA 1068 of 2005 BETWEEN : YAO NAN CHANG

Appellant

AND

CHRISTOPHER GRAEME TURNER

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MRS J G MUSK SM

File No : FR 2198 of 2005

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Defendant mentally unfit to stand trial - Criteria for making a custody order - Whether Magistrate gave adequate weight to the precept that a custody order must not be made unless it is appropriate - Whether sufficient consideration given to statutory criteria - The making of a custody order upheld

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA), s 16

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A J Robson

Respondent : Mr P D Yovich

Solicitors:

Appellant : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Australian Securities Commission v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (1996) 70 FCR 93
Garrett v Nicholson (1999) 21 WAR 226
GFS v The Queen [2001] WASCA 219
Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665

Case(s) also cited:

Betts v Hardcastle (2001) 23 WAR 559
Dicks v Farrell [2001] WASCA 124
Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347
O'Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210
R v Gardiner (No 3) (2000) 24 SR (WA) 136
R v Garlett [2002] WADC 87

(Page 3)

1 HASLUCK J: This is an appeal against a custody order made pursuant to s 16 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA). The appellant, Yao Nan Chang, contends that the learned Magistrate erred…

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 Chang v Turner

Details

AGLC: Chang v Turner [2005] WASC 246
Case: [2005] WASC 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Western Australia presided over by Hasluck J heard an appeal brought by Yao Nan Chang against a custody order made under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA). The appeal challenged the decision of the Magistrates Court to order the appellant's detention under the Act. The court was required to determine whether the Magistrate erred in her exercise of discretion in making the custody order. The key legal issues involved whether the Magistrate adequately considered the statutory criteria and the appellant's personal circumstances in her decision-making process.

The court held that the Magistrate was justified in considering the offence as "very serious" due to the appellant's threatening conduct. The court also found that the Magistrate had considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the psychiatrist's management plan, although not explicitly mentioned in her reasons. The Magistrate's brief reasons indicated she had balanced the statutory criteria, particularly the public interest, against the appellant's liberty. The court concluded that the Magistrate had properly exercised her discretion and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders