Mower v Bozic - [2023] ACTMC 41

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Mower v Bozic
Citation:	[2023] ACTMC 41
Hearing Date:	30 October 2023
Decision Date:	22 November 2023
Before:	Special Magistrate Richter
Decision:	Application pursuant to section 334 dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Mental Impairment – s 334 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – consideration of whether the mental impairment is treatable or otherwise amenable to management
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 334, division 13.6 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 27 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) ss 9, 108 Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) s 19
Cases Cited:	Gordon v Reddin [2013] ACTSC 87 Nelson v Heil [2013] ACTSC 11
Parties:	S Mower ( Informant) D Bozic ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel H Andriunas ( Informant) A Byrnes ( Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Byrnes Law Group
File Number:	CC 5511 of 2022

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RICHTER:

Introduction

1․This is an application for an order under s 334 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
2․The defendant is charged with one count of driving with prescribed concentration of alcohol (PCA) in blood or breath contrary to s 19 of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), with a reading of 0.348 being level 4.
3․The circumstances of the offending are that at about 8:28 pm on 22 April 2023, the defendant had driven a green coloured Mazda into the garage of 18 Rule Street and into the fence of 35 Rule Street, Isaacs ACT.
4․Police arrived a short time afterwards and observed the defendant sitting on the curb near the vehicle, complaining of pain to his foot. They spoke to the defendant. He smelled of liquor and he was slurring his words. The defendant was obviously intoxicated, and a subsequent breath analysis test was conducted with a rating of 0.348.
5․The offence carries the following penalties for repeat offenders: (1) a fine of 20 penalty units ($3200), imprisonment for 12 months or both, and (2) a licence disqualification default period of 3 years or if the court orders a shorter period, then a minimum of 6 months.
6․This is against a background of having previously been convicted in the ACT Magistrates Court for offences of aggravated assault occasioning actual bodily harm (family violence) and aggravated damage property (family violence), for which he was on a good behaviour order at the time of the current offending.
7․His behaviour on the night of this offending was said to be in response to that sentencing outcome and an attempt to commit suicide.

Section 334

8․The provision appears in division 13.6 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which is headed:
Summary proceedings against mentally impaired people
9․The division generally, and s 334 in particular, applies to summary offences and indictable offences that may be heard and determined summarily. The charge referred to above falls into the summary offence category.
10․Section 334 permits the Court to make either an order dismissing a charge and…

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 Mower v Bozic

Details

AGLC: Mower v Bozic [2023] ACTMC 41
Case: [2023] ACTMC 41
Decision Date: 22 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mower v Bozic involved an application by the accused, Mower, under section 334 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) seeking an order that his mental impairment was treatable or otherwise amenable to management. The application was dismissed by the court. The central issue before the court was whether the accused's mental impairment was treatable or could otherwise be managed, as required by section 334 of the Act. This section provides that a court may make an order that a defendant's mental impairment is treatable or otherwise amenable to management if the court considers it appropriate to do so.

The court considered the evidence and submissions presented regarding the nature and extent of the accused's mental impairment. It was determined that while the accused had a mental impairment, it was not treatable or amenable to management in the context required by section 334 of the Act. The court found that the accused's condition did not meet the criteria for an order under the statute. The application was accordingly dismissed, and no order was made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application pursuant to section 334 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.