NSW Police v Williamson

Case [2018] NSWLC 25

Local Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: NSW Police v Williamson [2018] NSWLC 25
Hearing dates: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 12 June 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: M O’Brien LCM
Decision:

The application is dismissed and an urgent hearing date will be allocated

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – stay of proceedings - permanent – cognitive impairments – whether defendant fit to be tried – Presser Test – whether defendant suitable for diversion under s 32, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 202

Justice Legislation Amendment Act 2017 (rep)

Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, s 32

Cases Cited:

Albon v R (District Court, unreported, 5 February 2016)

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Saunders [2017] NSWSC 760

Director of Public Prosecutions v El Mawas [2006] NSWCA 154

Director of Public Prosecutions v Shirvanian (1998) 44 NSWLR 129

Eastman v R [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1

Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] HCA 46; (1989) 168 CLR 23

John Frith (1790) 22 State Tr 307

Kesavarajah v The Queen [1994] HCA 41; (1994) 181 CLR 230

Mantell v Molyneux [2006] NSWSC 955

Ngatayi v R (1980) 147 CLR 1

Police v AR (Children’s Law News 1 – May 2010, 18 November 2009)

Police v Beth [2014] NSW ChC 8 (18 December 2014)

Quinn v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 331

R v Basha (1989) 39 A Crim R 337

R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1

R v HW [2017] NSWLC 25

R v KF [2011] NSWLC 14

R v Littler [2001] NSWCCA 173

R v Mailes [2001] NSWCCA 155; (2001) 53 NSWLR 251

R v Presser [1958] VR 45

R v Rivkin [2004] NSWCCA 7

R v Sexton (2000) 116 A Crim R 173

Smiles v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 37 FCR 538

Texts Cited:

D Howard and B Westmore, Crime and Mental Health Law in New South Wales (3rd ed, 2018, LexisNexis)

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: NSW Police (prosecution)
Stephen Derick Williamson (defendant)
Representation: Sgt D Middleton (prosecution)
Pennicott & Weir Solicitors (defendant)
File Number(s): 2017/00071449
2017/00307578
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Background

  1. This is an application for a permanent stay of proceedings in respect of which Stephen Derek Williamson (the defendant) presently stands charged or, if the court deems it appropriate, to discharge the defendant pursuant to section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (MHFPA). I have reduced my reasons to writing so that they are clear for the assistance of both the prosecution and the defence.

  2. By way of brief background the defendant:

  1. Was born in 1958 and will turn 60 next October;

  2. Is not presently in a domestic relationship;

  3. Has two adult daughters who are the victims in the two sets of proceedings to which I have referred;

  4. Is reliant for support upon a disability support pension; and

  5. Lives alone in his home which he owns at Batlow.

  1. Last year, whilst his daughter Matika Mavis Bell (Matika)…

Continue reading NSW Police v Williamson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NSW Police v Williamson [2018] NSWLC 25
Case
[2018] NSWLC 25
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was brought by the NSW Police against Williamson, the defendant. The central issue in dispute was whether the defendant, who has cognitive impairments, was fit to stand trial. The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with determining the defendant's fitness to be tried and whether the defendant was suitable for diversion under section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. This involved an application for a permanent stay of proceedings based on the defendant's cognitive impairments and the potential for diversion under the relevant mental health legislation.

The court needed to apply the Presser Test to assess the defendant's fitness to be tried. This test requires the court to consider whether the defendant has a sufficient appreciation of the nature and object of the proceedings, and whether the defendant can make a defence. The court also needed to consider the defendant's suitability for diversion under section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. This involves determining whether the defendant's cognitive impairments would prevent them from understanding the charges and participating in the trial process.

After considering the evidence presented, the court found that the defendant was fit to be tried. The court determined that the defendant had a sufficient appreciation of the nature and object of the proceedings, and that the defendant was able to make a defence. The court also found that the defendant was not suitable for diversion under section 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, as the defendant's cognitive impairments did not prevent them from understanding the charges and participating in the trial process. As a result, the application for a permanent stay of proceedings was dismissed, and an urgent hearing date will be allocated.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed and an urgent hearing date will be allocated

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.