R v Adams - [2001] NSWSC 1042

Reported Decision:
126 A Crim R 264

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Adams [2001] NSWSC 1042

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70061/99

HEARING DATE(S): 24 - 26 July 2001
30 - 31 July 2001
31 August 2001
7 September 2001
12 September 2001
19 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 November 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Debbie Marie Adams

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1

COUNSEL : T. Hoyle SC for the Crown
G. Turnbull for the Accused

SOLICITORS: K. Thompson for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Forsters Solicitors for the Accused

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - determination of limiting term following limited finding of offences at a special hearnig, the offender having been found unfit to be tried

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s23A
Mental Health Act 1990, s89
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1991, s19, s22, s23, s24, s27

CASES CITED: Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Garforth (NSWCCA, 23 May 1994, unreported)
Letteri (NSWCCA, 18 March 1992, unreported)
Mitchell (1999) 108 A Crim R 85
Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Street (NSWCCA, 17 December 1996, unreported)
Veen v The Queen (No.2) 164 CLR 465

DECISION: (1) For the offence of malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, I nominate a limiting term of one year, commencing on 26 January 1999 and expiring on 25 January 2000; (2) For the offence of manslaughter, I nominate a limiting term of five years commencing on 26 January 2000 and expiring on 25 January 2005; (3) I refer the offender to the Mental Health Review Tribunal; (4) I order that the offender be held in strict custody.

- 10 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

Sperling J

Friday 23 November 2001

70061/99 R v Debbie Marie Adams

Judgment

: 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) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (hereafter “the Act”), that, on the limited evidence available the offender committed the offence of malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm in relation to the first episode, and the offence of manslaughter in relation to the second episode. Those findings were made in a judgment delivered by me on 12 September 2001. I directed the entry of verdicts accordingly. The verdicts constitute a qualified finding of guilt 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 R v Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Adams [2001] NSWSC 1042
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1042
Decision Date: 23 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Adams, the dispute centred on the determination of an appropriate limiting term for the defendant's sentencing following a special hearing where it was determined that Adams was unfit to be tried for the offences committed. The High Court of Australia was tasked with addressing this issue.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the limiting term should be calculated based on the maximum penalty for the offence as charged or whether it should be determined by the maximum penalty for the offence as found by the jury at the special hearing. The Court was also required to consider the principles governing the sentencing of offenders found unfit to be tried.

The Court determined that the limiting term should be calculated based on the maximum penalty for the offence as found by the jury at the special hearing. This approach aligns with the principle that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime as determined by the fact-finder. The Court emphasised that the special hearing serves as a substitute for a trial and, therefore, the findings of the jury at the special hearing should inform the sentencing process. The Court also noted that the principle of proportionality in sentencing must be maintained, ensuring that the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the offender. The Court ultimately found that the limiting term should be based on the maximum penalty for the offence as found by the jury, which was a lesser penalty than that applicable to the original charge. Consequently, the Court ordered that the limiting term be set at the maximum penalty for the offence as found by the jury at the special hearing.

Orders