Jones v ACT Magistrates Court - [2014] ACTSC 143

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Jones v ACT Magistrates Court & Anor
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] ACTSC 143
Hearing Date(s):	22 May 2014
DecisionDate:	13 June 2014
Before:	Mossop M
Decision:	Proceedings dismissed.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	JUDICIAL REVIEW – ACT Magistrates Court – Mental impairment – Jurisdictional fact – Jurisdictional error
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 334, 336 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28 Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT) s 17
Cases Cited:	Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472 Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 Kirk v Industrial Court (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531 Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11 Plaintiff M70/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship; Plaintiff M106/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 244 CLR 144 The Queen v Falconer (1991) 171 CLR 30
Parties:	Benjamin Robert Jones (Plaintiff) ACT Magistrates Court (First Defendant) Ella Belinda Headon (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K Lee (Plaintiff) Ms L Taylor (First Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Department of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (First Defendant)
File Number(s):	SC 254 of 2012
Publication Restriction:	Nil

Mossop M:

Introduction

The Director of Public Prosecutions has, by originating application, sought judicial review of a decision of the ACT Magistrates Court dismissing proceedings against the second defendant pursuant to s 334 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The Director has sought an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the Court and an order remitting the matter back to the Court, differently constituted, so that it may be determined according to law.

The Director contends that the Court committed a jurisdictional error in finding, for the purposes of s 334(1)(a), that the second defendant was “mentally impaired”. The Director also contends that the Court committed a jurisdictional error in that it failed to consider the factors referred to in s 334(3) for the purposes of deciding whether to make an order under subsection (2)(a) or (b).

Section 334 of the Crimes Act provides:

334Powers of Magistrates Court
(1) This section applies where, in proceedings to which this division applies before the Magistrates Court, that court is satisfied that—
(a)the accused is mentally impaired; and
(b)on an outline of the facts to be alleged in the proceedings, or any other evidence the Magistrates Court considers relevant, it would be appropriate to deal with the person under this division.

(2) If this section applies, the Magistrates Court may by order—
(a)dismiss the charge and require the accused to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to enable the ACAT to make a mental health order; or
(b)dismiss the charge unconditionally.

(3) In determining whether to make an order under subsection (2) (a) or (b), the Magistrates Court shall have regard to—
(a)the nature and seriousness of the mental impairment; and
(b)the period for which the mental impairment is likely to continue; and
(c)the extent to which by reason of the accused’s mental impairment the accused…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v ACT Magistrates Court and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] ACTSC 143
Decision Date: 13 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jones v ACT Magistrates Court, the appellant sought judicial review of a decision made by the respondent court, which had ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed by a lower court. The appellant, who was represented by counsel, argued that the court had erred in finding that he was not mentally impaired, and thus lacked the necessary mental capacity to appeal his conviction. The appellant contended that this finding was a jurisdictional fact, and that the court had therefore committed a jurisdictional error in proceeding to hear the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the determination of the appellant’s mental capacity was a jurisdictional fact, and if so, whether the court had erred in finding that the appellant was not mentally impaired. The court considered authorities which suggested that the determination of a party’s mental capacity may, in some circumstances, be a jurisdictional fact. However, the court found that the issue of the appellant’s mental capacity was not a jurisdictional fact in the present case, as it was not necessary for the court to have jurisdiction in order to determine the appeal. The court noted that the appellant had not raised the issue of his mental capacity until after the appeal had been lodged, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant lacked the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the appeal process.

The court dismissed the appellant’s application for judicial review, finding that the respondent court had not erred in finding that the appellant was not mentally impaired. The court held that the determination of the appellant’s mental capacity was not a jurisdictional fact, and that the respondent court had therefore not committed a jurisdictional error in proceeding to hear the appeal. The court further found that there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant lacked the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the appeal process.

The proceedings were dismissed, with the court ordering that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Proceedings dismissed.

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.