R v Adams - [2003] NSWSC 142

Reported Decision:
58 NSWLR 1

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Adams [2003] NSWSC 142

HEARING DATE(S): 28 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 March 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

DECISION: Order, pursuant to s27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, that Debbie Marie Adams be detained in a place other than a hospital situated in New South Wales.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - consideration relevant to whether and, if so, what order should be made pursuant to s27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (which empowers the Court to order that an offender in relation to whom a "limiting term" has been determined be detained in a hospital or in some other place)

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health Act 1990, s82, Sch 1
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, s14, s19, s22, s23, s24, s27

CASES CITED: R v Adams [2001] NSWSC 1042
Regina v Debbie Marie Adams [2002] NSWCCA 448

PARTIES :
Regina
Debbie Marie Adams

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70061/99

COUNSEL: Mr T Hoyle SC for the Crown
Mr L Adamson (Solicitor) for the Offender

SOLICITORS: Mr SE O'Connor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Forsters Solicitors for the Offender

- 30 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
Criminal

Sperling J

Friday, 14 March 2003

70061/99 Regina v Debbie Marie Adams

Judgment

1 His Honour: The offender, Debbie Marie Adams, was found to be unfit to be tried pursuant to s14 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

2 Following a special hearing pursuant to s19 of the Act, I found, pursuant to s22, that, on the limited evidence available, the offender had committed the offence of malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the offence of manslaughter.

3 On 23 November 2001, pursuant to s23(1)(b), I fixed a limiting term of one year in respect of the first offence and a cumulative limiting term of five years in relation to the second offence. Pursuant to s24, I referred the offender to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and ordered that the offender be held in strict custody.

4 The following is an extract from my remarks published on 23 November 2001 (R v Adams [2001] NSWSC 1042):

[1]

The offender was born on 11 August 1982. On 25 January 1999, at the age of 16, she stabbed her mother with a knife causing serious injury. The offender was taken into custody on 26 January 1999 and was detained at the Yasmar Juvenile Justice Centre, where she attended the Sunning Hill School within the centre precincts. On 23 July 1999, when not yet 17 years of age, she stabbed a teacher with a knife during a cooking class at the school, killing him.

[2] The offender was found unfit to be tried. She is of low intelligence and suffers from a severe personality disorder. At a special hearing conducted before me without a jury, I found, pursuant to s19(1)…

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 Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Adams [2003] NSWSC 142
Case: [2003] NSWSC 142
Decision Date: 14 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adams involved the defendant, Adams, who was subject to a criminal trial. Adams had been charged with various criminal offences and was found to be mentally ill. The issue before the court was whether Adams should be detained in a hospital or another place, pursuant to section 27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. This section empowers the court to order that an offender in relation to whom a "limiting term" has been determined be detained in a hospital or in some other place. The court was required to determine the appropriate order, taking into account Adams' mental health and the need to balance the interests of public safety with Adams' rights as a mentally ill person.

The court considered the evidence presented on Adams' mental health, including expert medical opinions and the nature and circumstances of the offences for which Adams had been charged. The court also examined the provisions of the Mental Health Act and relevant case law to determine the appropriate course of action. In reaching its decision, the court took into account the severity of the offences, the risk posed by Adams to the public, and the likelihood of Adams' rehabilitation and recovery with appropriate treatment and support. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and the need to protect the rights of mentally ill offenders.

The court determined that Adams should be detained in a hospital, rather than some other place, as the court found that this was the most appropriate and effective way to ensure Adams received the necessary treatment and support for his mental illness. The court considered that hospital detention would provide Adams with access to specialist mental health services and a structured environment, which would be beneficial for his recovery and rehabilitation. The court also found that hospital detention would allow for ongoing monitoring and assessment of Adams' mental health and risk to the public, which would help to ensure that the interests of public safety were protected. The court made an order under section 27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, directing that Adams be detained in a hospital.

In summary, the court found that Adams should be detained in a hospital, rather than some other place, to ensure that he received the necessary treatment and support for his mental illness while also protecting the interests of public safety. The court made an order under section 27 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, directing that Adams be detained in a hospital. The decision of the court reflects the importance of balancing the rights of mentally ill offenders with the need to protect the public and ensure that offenders receive appropriate treatment and support for their mental illness.

Orders