Heyne v Gray - [2018] ACTMC 6

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Heyne v Gray
Citation:	[2018] ACTMC 6
Hearing Dates:	27 April 2018
DecisionDate:	8 May 2018
Before:	Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	See [24] – [36]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – offences against the person – disposition of criminal charges under Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 334 – diversion to mental health tribunal – relevant factors to determine appropriateness – test of balancing interests
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 334
Cases Cited:	Confos v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2004] NSWSC 1159 Director of Public Prosecutions v El Mawas (2006) 66 NSWLR 93 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11 (25 January 2013) Perry v Forbes (Unreported, Supreme Court of NSW, Smart J, 21 May 1993)
Parties:	Constable Scott Heyne (Informant) Corey Gray (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr P Dixon (Informant) Mr A McKenna (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Aulich (Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 12788 of 2017

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER

Mr Gray comes before me charged with one count of committing assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the 1 September 2017, pursuant to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (‘ACT Crimes Act’). The facts are not in dispute and there is CCTV footage depicting what happened. I have seen that footage played in Court before me on 27 April 2018.
Essentially it depicts the defendant speaking with Chaydin Reid, a friend, when he suddenly punches Mr Reid knocking him off his chair. The defendant then goes over to Mr Reid when he is on the floor and delivers more punches. Another patron of the establishment where it occurred comes between the two parties. The defendant then takes an air swing at Mr Reid. The incident is over in a matter of seconds.
Counsel for the defendant has made an application under s 334 of the ACT Crimes Act for this matter to be dealt with under that provision.
I have had the benefit of a comprehensive forensic mental health assessment report before me under the hand of Dr Daniella Clout dated 2 March 2018, exhibited before me as Exhibit D1. I have also read a treatment report by treating Psychologist Susan Pelengaris, and several character references which all speak highly of the defendant and which assert that this behaviour is totally out of character.
I also have a discharge summary of the injuries sustained by Mr Reid, together with photographs exhibited as Exhibits P4 and P5.
The defendant does not have any criminal antecedents for violent behaviour. It would appear from the evidence before me that this behaviour came ‘out of the blue’.
I note from the Forensic Report and the Psychologist Report that the defendant had been suffering with a mental illness at the time of the offence. I note he had received some treatment from Ms Pelengaris just prior to the incident. Ms Pelengaris outlined her findings at that time…

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 Heyne v Gray

Details

AGLC: Heyne v Gray [2018] ACTMC 6
Case: [2018] ACTMC 6
Decision Date: 8 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Heyne v Gray, the defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The case involved a dispute where the defendant was alleged to have caused physical injury to another individual. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether it was appropriate to divert the defendant's criminal charges to a mental health tribunal. The court was required to consider the relevant factors in determining the appropriateness of such a disposition. This included an assessment of the defendant's mental health, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the potential benefits of diversion for the defendant and the community.

The court considered the statutory framework and relevant case law in reaching its decision. It determined that the test for diversion involved a balancing of interests, including the defendant's mental health needs, the seriousness of the offence, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the defendant's mental health issues were significant and that diversion would likely be in the best interests of both the defendant and the community.

The court ordered the defendant's charges be diverted to a mental health tribunal, with specific conditions and requirements outlined in the orders. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the defendant received appropriate mental health treatment and support. The decision highlighted the need for a careful assessment of the individual circumstances of each case when considering diversion under the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [24] – [36]

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.