JM v R;; R v JM

The applicant, JM, appealed against both their conviction and sentence following their conviction for multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and indecent assault. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which also considered a Crown appeal against the sentence. The applicant had been convicted of 10 counts of aggravated sexual assault and acquitted of 4 other counts, with the remaining charges of indecent assault being withdrawn. The applicant contested the presumption of fitness to be tried, arguing that they may not have been fit to be tried at the time of the trial. The Crown, in turn, argued that the presumption of fitness was not displaced, and that any reasonable tribunal could not conclude that the applicant was not fit to be tried.

The court examined whether the criteria established in Presser v The Queen were met, which would indicate that the applicant was not fit to be tried. This involved assessing the applicant's mental state at the time of the trial and whether they had the capacity to understand the proceedings, challenge evidence, and instruct legal counsel. The court found that the applicant was fit to be tried and dismissed the conviction appeal. Regarding the sentence, the court considered whether the sentence of 6 years and 7 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months, was manifestly inadequate. The court applied its residual discretion and determined that the sentence was appropriate, dismissing the Crown appeal against the sentence.

Consequently, the applicant's conviction appeal was dismissed, and the Crown's appeal against the sentence was also dismissed. The court upheld the original conviction and sentence, finding that the applicant was fit to be tried and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate.