(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Debelle and The Honourable Justice Besanko)
21 October 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ACCUSED UNFIT TO PLEAD OR INCAPABLE DURING TRIAL
Appellant, a deaf mute, charged with offence before District Court - trial judge refused an application for a permanent stay of proceedings based on argument that the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court - application for stay refused on ground that the procedures to determine fitness to stand trial provided for in Part 8A Division 3 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (the Act) were applicable - held (by majority) that the procedures provided for in Part 8A Division 3 of the Act were applicable - appeal dismissed.
Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Debelle and Besanko JJ
DUGGAN J. The background to this appeal is set out in the judgment of Debelle J.
The appellant applied to a District Court judge for a permanent stay of the proceedings against him. According to the argument, the medical reports before the court established that the appellant, a deaf mute, was suffering from deficits which would render a trial unfair, but which were not of such a nature as would justify a finding pursuant to s 269H of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the Act”) that he was unfit to stand trial. It was argued that to require the appellant to stand trial would constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
The trial judge took the view that the matter should be dealt with in accordance with the procedures for determining whether a person is unfit to stand trial. In reaching this conclusion he rejected the argument that a person suffering from deficits such as those described in the medical reports before the court, could not, as…
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 R v Abdulla
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Abdulla [2005] SASC 399
Case
[2005] SASC 399
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Abdulla, the appellant, a deaf mute, was charged with an offence before the District Court. The trial judge declined an application for a permanent stay of proceedings, arguing that the proceedings would be an abuse of the court's process due to the appellant's inability to participate. The primary legal issue was whether the procedures outlined in Part 8A Division 3 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 were applicable to determine the appellant's fitness to stand trial. The majority held that these procedures were indeed applicable, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
The court examined whether the appellant's inability to give instructions in relation to the trial of the objective elements of the offence warranted a stay under the doctrine of abuse of process. The court found that the specific legislative provisions for the consequences of such a state of affairs precluded the application of the abuse of process doctrine unless there were special or unusual circumstances, which were absent in this case. Consequently, the court rejected the submission that a stay should be granted regardless of the appellant's fitness to be tried under section 269H.
In reaching its decision, the court held that the statutory framework provided by Part 8A Division 3 of the Act sufficiently addressed the appellant's incapacity to participate in the trial. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal provisions in refusing the application for a permanent stay of proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
DUGGAN J
BESANKO J
Counsel for the appellant put an alternative submission to the effect that even if the appellant fell within the terms of s 269H and therefore was not mentally fit to be tried, nevertheless a stay should be granted because the appellant could not give instructions in relation to a trial of the objective elements of the offence. I reject this submission. It seems to me that that would invariably be so and that there is no room for the operation of the doctrine of abuse of process where Parliament make specific provision for the consequences of a particular state of affairs and there are otherwise (as in this case) no special or unusual circumstances.Conclusion In my opinion, the appeal should be dismissed.