Director of Public Prosecutions v Rossiter (No 4)

The matter before the court involved the Director of Public Prosecutions and the respondent, Rossiter. The primary issue was whether the respondent was fit to plead. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The respondent, who was extremely elderly, had been charged with criminal offences and was assessed for fitness to plead under the relevant statutory criteria. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the respondent was unfit to plead due to his advanced age and alleged incapacity to follow the proceedings or provide instructions to his lawyers.

The court had to determine if the respondent was fit to plead, whether he was likely to become fit within the next twelve months, and if there was a guardian able to make an election under the relevant statute. The court considered the criteria established in the case of Presser, which require a defendant to have the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings, to follow the course of the proceeding, and to provide instructions to their lawyers. The evidence presented indicated that the respondent did not meet these criteria due to his extreme age and associated cognitive decline.

In reaching its decision, the court found the respondent unfit to plead, noting that he was unlikely to become fit within the next year. The court also found that there was no guardian who could make an election on his behalf. Consequently, the court directed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to appoint a guardian who could notify the court if it was in the respondent's best interest to have a trial by a single judge without a jury. The matter was listed for directions on 28 May 2025.