DPP v Taleski - [2007] VSC 183

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1589 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JOHN TALESKI

---

JUDGE:	CAVANOUGH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 April 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 June 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Taleski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 183

---

Criminal law – One charge of murder – Two charges of attempted murder – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Trial by judge – Verdict of not guilty on all counts by reason of mental impairment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G Horgan	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr R Backwell	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

This is a hearing pursuant to the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act1997 (“the Act”). The defendant, Mr John Taleski, has been arraigned on the offence of murdering Benjamin John Rootes and attempting to murder Lee Charles Hallam and Scott Graeme Howard at Spotswood in Victoria on 4 March 2006. Mr Taleski pleaded not guilty to all three counts by reason of mental impairment. There was agreement between the prosecution and the defence that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment as defined in s 20 of the Act.

Section 20 provides:

“20. Defence of mental impairment
(1)The defence of mental impairment is established for a person charged with an offence if, at the time of engaging in conduct constituting the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that-
(a)he or she did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b)he or she did not know that the conduct was wrong (that is, he or she could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).

(2)If the defence of mental impairment is established, the person must be found not guilty because of mental impairment.”

Where the prosecution and the defence agree that the proposed evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment, the trial judge may hear the evidence, and if satisfied that the evidence establishes the defence of mental impairment may direct that a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment be recorded: s 21(4) of the Act.

In R v Sebalj[1] Smith J held that “mental impairment” in s 20 means no more and no less than “a disease of the mind” as that concept was used in the common law M’Naughten defence of insanity. This interpretation was affirmed by Bongiorno J in R v Martin.[2] I propose to adopt it also.
[1][2003] VSC 181.
[2][2005] VSC 518 at [4]-[12]. See also R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182.

It is common ground that the present case falls under s 20(1)(b) of the Act (ie that the defendant did not know that the conduct was wrong etc) as…

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 Taleski

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Taleski [2007] VSC 183
Case: [2007] VSC 183
Decision Date: 1 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Taleski, the defendant was charged with one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant was found not guilty on all counts by the trial judge, who determined that Taleski was unfit to be tried due to a mental impairment, in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge correctly found the defendant to be unfit to be tried on the basis of his mental impairment. The Court of Appeal was required to consider the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented during the trial to determine if the trial judge had made an error of law or fact in reaching the verdict. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether the trial judge appropriately exercised his discretion in ordering a trial by judge alone.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had exercised his discretion appropriately. The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that Taleski suffered from a severe mental impairment, which rendered him unfit to participate in his defence or understand the proceedings against him. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding that the verdict of not guilty on all counts by reason of mental impairment was justified. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

In light of the Court of Appeal's decision, the final orders were that the verdict of not guilty on all counts by reason of mental impairment, as determined by the trial judge, remained in place. The defendant, Taleski, was to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.

Orders