Conan Teague (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0070

CONAN TEAGUE (A PSEUDONYM)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, BEACH and HARGRAVE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 March 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 March 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 77
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VCC 1340 (Judge Davis)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Appeal – Charges of rape and common assault – Special hearing under Part 3 of Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Jury finding that applicant committed offences of rape and common assault – Custodial supervision order imposed with nominal term of 25 years – Appeal against jury’s finding on rape charge – Applicant suffers from intellectual disability – Expert evidence about intellectual disability’s capacity to affect applicant’s understanding that feigned consent was not true consent – Relevant expert evidence not led – Failure to lead relevant expert evidence resulted in miscarriage of justice – Special hearing unbalanced and unfair – Appeal allowed – Jury’s finding that applicant committed offence of rape set aside – Custodial supervision order set aside – Matter remitted to County Court for rehearing – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, ss 15, 17, 18 and 28 – Evidence Act 2008, s 80.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D A Dann QC with Mr B Johnston	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnet with Mr M D Phillips	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA
BEACH JA
HARGRAVE JA:

On 12 June 2014, the applicant was charged with one count of common assault and one count of rape. The charges arose out of a dispute that occurred earlier that day between the applicant and the complainant, a registered sex worker.

The applicant has an intellectual disability. On 18 April 2016, a jury was empanelled to determine whether the applicant was fit to stand trial. Evidence was called, by the Crown, from a forensic psychologist (Dr Joel Godfredson) and, by the applicant, from a clinical neuropsychologist (Ms Jane Lofthouse). After receiving appropriate directions from the judge, the jury deliberated and subsequently returned a verdict that the applicant was not fit to stand trial.

On 19 April 2016, another jury was empanelled for the purposes of conducting a special hearing under Part 3 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘the Crimes Mental Impairment Act’). The purpose of the special hearing was to determine whether, on the evidence available, the applicant committed the offences with which he was charged, or was not guilty of those offences.[2]
[2]See s 15 of the Crimes Mental Impairment Act. While s 15 provides that a purpose of a special hearing is also to determine whether or not…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Conan Teague (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] VSCA 77
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria presided over an appeal by an individual identified only as Conan Teague against his conviction and sentence for charges of rape and common assault. The lower court jury had found Teague guilty on both counts, imposing a custodial supervision order with a nominal term of 25 years. Teague contested the jury's finding on the rape charge, arguing that the court failed to consider the impact of his intellectual disability on his ability to understand the nature of the alleged offence. Teague's appeal centred on the legal implications of his intellectual disability on the jury's verdict and the fairness of the proceedings.

The appeal required the court to determine whether the lower court's failure to consider expert evidence regarding Teague's intellectual disability and its impact on his understanding of the concept of consent constituted a miscarriage of justice. The court had to assess whether the special hearing conducted under Part 3 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 was balanced and fair, particularly in light of the jury's determination that Teague had committed the offence of rape. The court also needed to decide whether the special hearing was conducted in accordance with the statutory provisions and whether the Evidence Act 2008's provisions on the admissibility of expert evidence were appropriately applied.

The court found that the special hearing was unbalanced and unfair due to the failure to lead relevant expert evidence regarding Teague's intellectual disability and its impact on his understanding of the concept of consent. The court held that the absence of this evidence resulted in a miscarriage of justice, as it directly affected Teague's ability to comprehend that feigned consent was not true consent. Consequently, the court set aside the jury's finding that Teague committed the offence of rape, quashed the custodial supervision order, and remitted the matter to the County Court for rehearing. The Supreme Court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the impact of intellectual disability on a defendant's understanding of the nature of the offence when conducting special hearings under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.

Orders