DPP v Jakeman

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1516 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Plaintiff
v
CODIE JAKEMAN	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	8 AUGUST 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 AUGUST 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v JAKEMAN
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 286

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment - Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act 1997, s.21(2)(b), s.21(4).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr B. Kayser	Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Dann	Chris McLennan & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

This is a hearing pursuant to s.21(2)(b) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act 1997. This provision allows the trial judge to determine whether a person charged with an indictable offence was suffering from mental impairment at the time the conduct constituting the offence occurred.

I have had placed before me this morning reports prepared by, respectively, Dr Danny Sullivan, dated 5 January 2007, Drs Jane Phillips and Douglas Bell, dated 6 June 2007, and a separate report of Dr Bell, also dated 6 June 2007. I have also before me a summary prepared by the police, of the circumstances surrounding the deaths on 10 June 2006 of John Philemon Green, formerly known as John Philemon Street, and Kathryn Hogg.

I am satisfied on the basis of that material that the accused, Mr Codie Jakeman, who has pleaded not guilty to the two charges of murder on which he was arraigned this morning, was, at the time of the commission of the offences with which he is charged, unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct in question was wrong. That being the case, the accused falls within the category of persons who can be dealt with pursuant to s.21(4) of the Act, and I am satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment.

I accordingly direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded. I further order that upon the provision to the court of a certificate pursuant to s.47, the accused be placed in custodial supervision, for a period of 25 years. That period is to be deemed to have commenced on 10 June 2006.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Jakeman was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed against the trial judge's decision to enter a verdict of not guilty on the ground of mental impairment in relation to a murder charge against the defendant. The trial had concluded with the jury being directed by the trial judge to return a verdict of not guilty due to the defendant's mental impairment, under the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness To Be Tried) Act 1997.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the trial judge correctly applied the statutory criteria for determining unfitness to stand trial due to mental impairment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's finding that the defendant was unfit to be tried, as per section 21(2)(b) of the Act, and whether the appropriate verdict was correctly entered under section 21(4) of the Act. The Court was also tasked with evaluating whether the trial judge appropriately balanced the considerations of public safety and the defendant's mental state.

In its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had appropriately weighed the necessary factors. The Court confirmed that the trial judge was entitled to consider the defendant's mental state and the circumstances of the case when determining unfitness to stand trial. The appellate court held that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no error in the application of the statutory criteria. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial judge's decision to enter a verdict of not guilty due to mental impairment.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision. The Court made no orders altering the outcome of the trial, maintaining the verdict of not guilty due to mental impairment as entered by the trial judge.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established