DPP v Connors - [2022] ACTSC 279

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Connors
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 279
Hearing Date:	10 October 2022
DecisionDate:	10 October 2022
Reasons Date:	11 October 2022
Before:	Loukas-Karlsson J
Decision:	See [67]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleas of not guilty by way of mental impairment – proof of offences – determination of mental impairment – whether offence of property damage is a “serious offence”
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 24, 30, 302, 304, 323, 324, 327, 381 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 312, 403 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68C, pt 8
Cases Cited:	R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 R v Kristy Louise McGuckin (No 2) [2014] ACTSC 365 R v Mulcahy [2010] R v Sidaros (No 5) [2020] ACTSC 354 R v Walker [2021] ACTSC 42
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Prosecution) Douglas Roy Connors (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel S Saikal-Skea (Plaintiff) J De Bruin (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Prosecution) ACT Legal Aid (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 234 and 235 of 2021

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J:

Introduction

On 10 October 2022, Douglas Roy Connors (the accused), with the assistance of counsel, pleaded not guilty by way of mental impairment to the following offences:

a) Count 1: CC 2021/4223 – aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). The offence has a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

b) Count 2: CC 2021/2533 – damage property contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code. The offence has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

c) Count 3: CC 2021/6257 – assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). The offence has a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.

d) Count 4: CC 2021/2534 – threat to kill contrary to s 30 Crimes Act. The offence has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.

On 10 October 2022, the accused’s counsel also entered on his behalf a plea of not guilty by way of mental impairment to a charge of possess an offensive weapon with intent contrary to s 381 of the Crimes Act (the transfer charge). That charge has a maximum penalty of $2,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both.

That charge had been transferred to the Supreme Court in accordance with pt 8 of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (Supreme Court Act). The Court has the same powers in relation to that offence as the Magistrates Court.

In accordance with ss 321 and 327 of the Crimes Act the prosecution agreed with the entering of a special verdict for each count on the indictment and the summary offence. Despite that indication, the Court must independently consider whether verdicts of not guilty by way of mental impairment are appropriate for each of the charges.

On 10 October 2022 I made orders entering verdicts of 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.

Continue reading DPP v Connors

Details

AGLC: DPP v Connors [2022] ACTSC 279
Case: [2022] ACTSC 279
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was presented with a case where Douglas Roy Connors, the accused, pleaded not guilty by way of mental impairment to multiple charges, including aggravated burglary, damage to property, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and threat to kill, as well as a charge of possessing an offensive weapon with intent. The court had to determine whether the accused was mentally impaired at the time of the offences and if so, whether this impairment absolved him of criminal responsibility under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The case involved the interpretation of statutory provisions related to mental impairment pleas and the criteria for determining such impairment.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the statutory framework governing pleas of not guilty by way of mental impairment and the criteria for mental impairment under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The court had to decide if the prosecution had proven the physical elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt and whether the accused was mentally impaired at the time of the offences. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the offence of damage to property qualified as a "serious offence" under the Crimes Act, as this would affect the type of order to be made under the Act following a finding of not guilty by way of mental impairment.

The court found that the prosecution had proven the physical elements of all the offences beyond reasonable doubt, as the accused did not dispute the facts as outlined in the Prosecution Case Statement. Expert reports from two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Richard Furst and Dr Stephen Allnutt, confirmed that the accused was suffering from a chronic mental illness at the time of the offences, specifically schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, which impaired his ability to understand the wrongfulness of his actions or control his conduct. Based on this evidence, the court determined that the accused was mentally impaired at the time of the offences and entered special verdicts of not guilty by way of mental impairment for all charges. Regarding the offence of damage to property, the court concluded that it was not a "serious offence" for the purposes of the mental impairment provisions, following the reasoning in R v Kristy Louise McGuckin (No 2).

The court ordered special verdicts of not guilty by way of mental impairment for all charges, and directed that the appropriate indicative sentence length be considered in a subsequent hearing. The court also made orders under the Crimes Act for the management of the accused's mental health.

Orders