R v Alford - [2005] VSC 405

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1406 of 2004

THE QUEEN

JAMES GORDON ALFORD

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	12 October 2005
DATE OF RULING:	12 October 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Alford (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 405

---

Criminal law - application by Crown for leave to raise question of mental impairment - application opposed by accused - expert evidence that accused suffering from delusional disorder at the time of offence - evidence capable of supporting verdict of not guilty on grounds of mental impairment - leave granted

Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 s.20(1)(b) and s.22(1)

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Mullaly	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

This is an application by the Crown, pursuant to s.22(1) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried Act) 1997, for leave to raise the question of mental impairment. The application is opposed by the defence.

Section 22(1) provides that “[t]he question of mental impairment may be raised at any time during a trial by the defence or, with the leave of the trial judge, by the prosecution”.

The application has been made before the empanelment of the jury, because the Crown prosecutor wants to open on the question of mental impairment; the issue lies at the heart of the way the Crown puts its case. It seems to me appropriate that the issue be dealt with at this time.

In support of the application, the Crown relies upon various psychiatric reports, which comprise Exhibit A. In particular, I have had regard to the reports of Dr Douglas Bell, dated 25 October 2003 and 1 November 2004, Dr Ruth Vine, dated 19 March 2004 and Dr Debra Wood, dated 3 May 2004. Each of Dr Bell, Dr Vine and Dr Wood concludes that, at the time of the alleged offences, Mr Alford was suffering from a delusional disorder, such that he was unable to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about his conduct. That is to say, he did not know that his conduct was wrong in terms of s.20(1)(b) of the Act.

Exhibit A also includes reports from Professor Paul Mullen. He appears not to share the other psychiatrists’ conclusions in relation to the delusional disorder. However, I note that Professor Mullen's reports are primarily concerned with the question of fitness to plead. I also note that, according to Dr Bell, other treating psychiatrists who have seen Mr Alford whilst he has been in Thomas Embling Hospital have expressed differing views about the diagnosis of delusional disorder. In particular, Dr Gunvent Patel concluded that Mr Alford had some sort of personality disorder, rather than a delusional disorder.

The defence opposes the application on several grounds. It is said that I should be reluctant to grant leave, 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 Alford

Details

AGLC: R v Alford [2005] VSC 405
Case: [2005] VSC 405
Decision Date: 12 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alford, the respondent, Alford, was facing criminal charges and the Crown sought leave to raise the question of his mental impairment during the trial. The application was opposed by Alford. The expert evidence presented indicated that Alford was suffering from a delusional disorder at the time of the offence. The court was required to determine whether this evidence could support a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence of Alford's mental condition was sufficient to warrant a finding of not guilty due to mental impairment. The court had to consider the statutory provisions under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, specifically sections 20(1)(b) and 22(1). The court needed to assess if Alford's condition met the criteria for a not guilty verdict by reason of mental impairment, and if the evidence presented was capable of supporting such a verdict.

The court found that the evidence of Alford's delusional disorder was capable of supporting a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. It concluded that the statutory criteria were satisfied and granted the Crown leave to raise the question of mental impairment. The court's decision was based on the sufficiency of the expert evidence presented, which demonstrated that Alford was suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time of the offence.

The court's final orders included granting the Crown leave to raise the issue of mental impairment and directing that the matter proceed to a trial on the question of whether Alford was unfit to be tried or not guilty by reason of mental impairment. This decision underscored the importance of expert evidence in cases involving claims of mental impairment and the need for a careful assessment of the statutory criteria.

Orders