Legal Research
Cases
Mantell v Molyneux

Mantell v Molyneux

Case [2006] NSWSC 955 18 September 2006

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
165 A Crim R 83

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Mantell v Molyneux [2006] NSWSC 955

HEARING DATE(S): 03/07/06, 05/07/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 September 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: Appeal allowed in part; See paras 51-53

CATCHWORDS: Appeal from Local Court - unfitness for trial - relevant considerations - whether diversion under s32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 appropriate - relevant considerations

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s428E
Crimes (Local Courts Appeal & Review) Act 2001, s 53(3),
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 9.
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, ss 32, 33, 34.
Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT), s 68(3).

CASES CITED: DPP v El Mawas [2006] NSWCA 154
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Mackie v Hunt (1989) 19 NSWLR 130
Ngatai v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1
Pioch v Lauder (1976) 13 ALR 266
R v Mailes (2001) 53 NSWLR 251
R v Presser [1958] VR 45

PARTIES: Paintiff: Jewel Mantell
Defendant: Alison Molyneux

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 14942/05

COUNSEL: Plaintiff: Mr A. Haesler SC
Defendant: Mr R.D. Cogswell SC, Ms B. Baker

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff: Gary Pudney, South Eastern Aboriginal Legal Services
Defendant: I V Knight, Crown Solicitor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Magistrate Dick

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

18 September 2006

14942/2005 MANTELL v MOLYNEUX

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction

1 This is an appeal under s53(3) of the Crimes (Local Courts Appeal & Review) Act 2001 against three decisions of his Honour Magistrate Dick in the Local Court at Nowra. Those decisions concerned, first, an application under s32 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, secondly, a further application under s32 of that Act and thirdly an application for a permanent stay.

2 This appeal concerns, amongst other things, the application of the provisions of s32 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (the Act) which is in the following terms –

“Persons suffering from mental illness or condition

(iii) suffering from a mental condition for which treatment is available in a hospital,

Mental Health Act

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 Mantell v Molyneux

Details

AGLC: Mantell v Molyneux [2006] NSWSC 955
Case: [2006] NSWSC 955
Decision Date: 18 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mantell v Molyneux, the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by the Local Court regarding their fitness for trial. The appellant argued that they were unfit for trial and sought a diversion under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court was required to consider the relevant factors in determining whether the appellant's unfitness for trial warranted a diversion under the specified legislation.

The court needed to determine whether the appellant's mental state rendered them unfit for trial and, if so, whether a diversion under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was appropriate. The court was tasked with considering the relevant factors in making this determination, including the appellant's understanding of the proceedings, the nature and seriousness of the offence, and the potential benefits of a diversion for the appellant's rehabilitation.

In delivering its decision, the court found that the appellant's mental state did indeed render them unfit for trial. However, the court concluded that a diversion under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was not appropriate in this case. The court found that the appellant's unfitness for trial was due to their severe mental illness, which was not treatable in a way that would make them fit for trial. The court also considered the nature and seriousness of the offence, as well as the potential benefits of a diversion for the appellant's rehabilitation, and determined that a diversion was not in the best interests of justice.

The court's final orders were that the appellant's appeal be dismissed and that the original decision of the Local Court be upheld. The court found that the Local Court had correctly determined that the appellant was unfit for trial and that a diversion under section 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was not appropriate. The court's decision provides guidance to future cases regarding the relevant factors to be considered in determining whether a diversion under this legislation is appropriate.

Orders