Matthew Edwards v Rebecca Craggs

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Matthew Edwards v Rebecca Craggs

Citation:

[2020] ACTMC 22

Hearing Date(s):

14 September 2020

DecisionDate:

21 September 2020

Before:

Chief Magistrate Walker

Decision:

See [1] - [41]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE mental impairment, prosecution election, s334 Crimes Act1900 (ACT), prosecutor’s consent to dismissal

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:

Bail Act 1992 (ACT)
Courts Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (ACT)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)

Grajewski v DPP New South Wales [2017] NSWCCA 251
Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34

Parties:

Representation:

Solicitors:

Matthew Edwards (Informant)

Rebecca Craggs (Defendant)

S Bargwanna (Prosecution)

G Meikle (Defendant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant)

Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)

File Number(s):

Charges 6206, 6207 and 10677 of 2019; 3039, 3040, 3041, 3042, 5474 and 8818 of 2020.

CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:

1. The defendant is charged as follows:

a. 31 May 2019, assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (“Crimes Act”) and damage property contrary to s116(3)(i) Crimes Act;

b. 6 March 2020, two counts of common assault contrary to s26 of the Crimes Act, minor theft contrary to s321 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (“Criminal Code”) and indecent exposure contrary to s393 Crimes Act;

c. 30 September 2019, 7 May 2020 and 24 July 2020 failing to appear contrary to s49 Bail Act 1992 (ACT) (“Bail Act”).

1. The assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. Each of the remaining offences are summary and carry imprisonment of two years or less as a maximum penalty.

1. Two matters fall to be decided:

a. when the prosecution elects to have an indictable matter, which may be dealt with summarily, dealt with summarily pursuant to section 374(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, is the consent of the prosecutor still required before the court can dismiss the charge pursuant to section 334(2) of the Crimes Act?

b. should the court exercise its power to dismiss some or all of the charges before the court pursuant to section 334(2) of the Crimes Act?

1. The Crimes Act Part 13 provides a diversionary scheme for people charged with a criminal offence who also suffer some form of mental impairment. Section 334(2) allows a magistrate to dismiss a charge or charges against the person. That dismissal may be either unconditional or on condition that the person submits to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for determination as to whether a mental health order should be made in respect to the person. Where the offence is a summary offence the dismissal is exclusively at the discretion of the Court.

1. However, s334(4) provides: “Despite subsection (2), the Magistrates Court may only make an order under that subsection in relation to proceedings with respect to an indictable offence…