GFS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 219

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2001] WASCA 219
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)	Published:	27/07/2001
Case No:	FUL:206/2000	Heard:	17 MAY 2001
Coram:	KENNEDY J WALLWORK J STEYTLER J	Delivered:	17/05/01
No of pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time for appealing Custody order quashed Order for release of appellant
PDF Version

Parties:	GFS THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appellant charged with 1 count of unlawful and indecent assault and 11 counts of rape Appellant mentally unfit to stand trial by reason of dementia Custody order made Psychiatric evidence that appellant presented no risk Criteria for making a custody order under Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 Public interest did not require that appellant be held in custody
Legislation:	Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996, s 19(5)
Case References:	Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376 R v Birch (1990) 90 Cr App R 78 R v Donovan [1990] WAR 112 R v Gardiner (No 3) (2000) 24 SR (WA) 136 R v M (1996) 88 A Crim R 387

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : GFS -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 219 CORAM : KENNEDY J

WALLWORK J

STEYTLER J

HEARD : 17 MAY 2001 DELIVERED : 17 MAY 2001 PUBLISHED : 27 JULY 2001 FILE NO/S : FUL 206 of 2000 BETWEEN : GFS

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appellant charged with 1 count of unlawful and indecent assault and 11 counts of rape - Appellant mentally unfit to stand trial by reason of dementia - Custody order made - Psychiatric evidence that appellant presented no risk - Criteria for making a custody order under Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 - Public interest did not require that appellant be held in custody

Legislation:

Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996, s 19(5)

(Page 2)

Result:

Extension of time for appealing

Custody order quashed
Order for release of appellant

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S J Browne

Respondent : Mr J Mactaggart

Solicitors:

Appellant : Stephen Browne

Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376

Case(s) also cited:

R v Birch (1990) 90 Cr App R 78
R v Donovan [1990] WAR 112
R v Gardiner (No 3) (2000) 24 SR (WA) 136
R v M (1996) 88 A Crim R 387

(Page 3)

1 KENNEDY J: The appellant came before a Judge of the Supreme Court on 5 December 2000 pursuant to Pt 3 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 ("the Act") in order to determine whether he was mentally fit to stand trial. He had been charged with 1 count of unlawful and indecent assault upon UF and 11 counts of raping UF, upon four of which he had been indicted jointly with his…

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 GFS v The Queen

Details

AGLC: GFS v The Queen [2001] WASCA 219
Case: [2001] WASCA 219
Decision Date: 27 JULY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of GFS v The Queen, the appellant was charged with one count of unlawful and indecent assault and eleven counts of rape. The appellant's fitness to stand trial was contested due to their condition of dementia, and it was determined that they were mentally unfit to stand trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around the criteria for making a custody order under the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 and whether the public interest required the appellant to be held in custody.

The court considered the evidence presented by the psychiatric experts who concluded that the appellant presented no risk to the public. The legal principles guiding the court's decision included the necessity of balancing the public interest in the administration of justice against the rights and welfare of the mentally impaired defendant. The court also had to consider the risk posed by the appellant, the availability of appropriate treatment, and the impact of the appellant's detention on their health and wellbeing. The court found that the appellant's dementia rendered them unable to participate in their defence and that the public interest did not necessitate their continued detention.

Upon evaluating the evidence and applying the relevant legal criteria, the court quashed the custody order and ordered the appellant's release. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that mentally impaired defendants receive appropriate treatment rather than being detained without necessity. The court recognised that the appellant's condition did not pose a risk to the public and that their detention served no justifiable purpose. Consequently, the appellant was released, and the court extended the time for appealing the decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Extension of time for appealing

Custody order quashed

Order for release of appellant

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.