R v Alexander Marcel Andre Sebastian Bailiff - [2004] ACTSC 42

R v ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BAILIFF [2004]
ACTSC 42 (9 June 2004)

CRIMINAL LAW – accused found unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit to plead within 12 months – special hearing – question of whether accused engaged in conduct required by offence – issue of self-defence – general principles.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 315, 316, 316(2), 316(8), 317, 319(2),

Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT), s 68(3)

Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991 (ACT)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 144

R v Ardler [2003] ACTCA 4 (30 March 2004)
Knight vR (1988) 35 A Crim R 314
Zecevic v DPP [1987] HCA 26 (1 July 1987)
R v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294

R v Kurtic (1996) 85 A Crim R 57

No SCC 21 of 2003

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 9 June 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 21 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R

v

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BAILIFF

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  9 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Mr Bailiff submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to enable it to make a mental health order.

This is a special hearing conducted pursuant to s 315 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) in relation to an indictment alleging that on 8 February 2003 Mr Bailiff assaulted Mr Brett Seaman. Particulars of the alleged assault were contained in a case statement provided on 7 April 2003 which alleged that:

The accused turned around and lunged at the complainant, grabbed his shirt and tie and tightened his grip whilst yelling at him “I know that you fucking idiot”.

On 11 September 2003, the Mental Health Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) determined that Mr Bailiff was not fit to plead to the charge and was unlikely to become fit to plead within twelve months.

A finding of unfitness to plead may only be made if the Tribunal is satisfied that the person’s mental processes are disordered or impaired to the extent that the person is unable—

(a)to understand the nature of the charge; or
(b)to enter a plea to the charge and to exercise the right to challenge jurors or the jury; or
(c)to understand that the proceedings are an inquiry as to whether the person committed the offence; or
(d)to follow the course of the proceedings; or
(e)to understand the substantial effect of any evidence that may be given in support of the prosecution; or
(f)to give instructions to his or her legal representative.

See s 68(3) of the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT) (“the Mental Health Act”).

An accused found unfit to plead may not be exposed to conviction or punishment for the alleged offence but, when the Tribunal has found that he or she is unlikely to become fit to plead within twelve months, a special hearing may be conducted in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Alexander Marcel Andre Sebastian Bailiff and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] ACTSC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory presided over a special hearing in the case of R v ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BAILIFF, where the accused was found unfit to plead due to significant mental impairment. The case involved an indictment alleging that the accused assaulted Mr Brett Seaman on 8 February 2003. The Mental Health Tribunal determined that the accused was unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit to plead within twelve months. The court was required to decide whether the Crown had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had engaged in the conduct required by the offence of assault, as per Section 317 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

The court's reasoning was based on the evidence presented, specifically the testimonies of Mr Seaman and Mr Weir, who were security guards at the scene. The court found that the accused reacted angrily to the conduct of the two security guards, who were following him closely as he walked down the stairs. The accused took hold of Mr Seaman's shirt in the vicinity of the collar. However, the court was not satisfied that the accused tightened his grip, took hold of Mr Seaman's tie, or spoke the words alleged. The court also found that the evidence did not raise any issue of self-defence.

Based on the evidence, the court found that the accused engaged in the conduct required by the offence of assault, as he took hold of another man's shirt. However, considering the criteria for detention in Section 308 of the Crimes Act, the court decided it was more appropriate to order that the accused submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to enable it to make a mental health order. This decision aimed to address the need for appropriate treatment and care for the accused due to his mental impairment and brain damage.

The court's final orders were that Mr Bailiff submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to enable it to make a mental health order.

Orders