R v Alizada - [2018] SASC 157

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ALIZADA
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SASC 157
Reasons for the Orders of The Honourable Justice Bampton
24 September 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
The defendant was charged with the attempted murder of his wife - he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence - investigation into the defendant's mental competence dealt with by way of a Judge sitting alone - Court determined to proceed first with the question of the defendant's mental competence to commit the offence in accordance with s 269FA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ("the CLCA") - Court accepted psychiatric evidence - finding recorded that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of attempted murder pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) - finding recorded that the objective elements of the offence of attempted murder established beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 269FB(2) - defendant found not guilty of the offence of attempted murder pursuant to s 269FB(3) and declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA - order made committing the defendant to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b).
HELD:
1. Finding recorded pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of attempted murder.
2. Finding recorded pursuant to s 269FB(2) that the objective elements of the offence established beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Pursuant to s 269FB(3), defendant found not guilty of the offence of attempted murder and declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA.
4. The defendant is committed to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b) of the CLCA.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, s 269, referred to.

R v ALIZADA
[2018] SASC 157
Criminal: Trial by Judge alone

BAMPTON J: Rahmatullah Alizada is charged with the attempted murder of his wife, Sideqa Alizada (“the offence”). Mr Alizada was arraigned this morning. Pursuant to s 284 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“the Act”), I ordered that a plea of not guilty be entered on his behalf. The defence of mental incompetence to commit the offence has been raised.
Mr Alizada is presumed to be mentally competent to commit an offence unless he is found on an investigation under Part 8A of the Act to have been mentally incompetent to commit the offence with which he is charged.
Mr Alizada has elected to have an investigation under Part 8A dealt with by Judge sitting alone pursuant to s 269B(1) of the Act.
Mental competence
Pursuant to s 269E(2) of the Act, I have determined to proceed first with the trial of Mr Alizada’s mental competence to commit the offence.
Mr Alizada has the onus of displaying the presumption of mental competence pursuant to s 269D of the Act.
The reports of the forensic psychiatrists, Dr Nambiar dated 19 February 2018 and Dr Haeney dated…

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 Alizada

Details

AGLC: R v Alizada [2018] SASC 157
Case: [2018] SASC 157
Decision Date: 24 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alizada, the defendant was accused of attempting to murder his wife. He contested the charge, asserting that he was mentally incapable of committing the crime. The court, following the procedures outlined in Section 269FA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), assessed the defendant's mental competency through a judge-alone trial. The court concluded that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of attempted murder, based on Section 269FA(5)(b) of the Act. Despite this finding, the court also determined that the objective elements of the offence of attempted murder were proven beyond reasonable doubt, as required by Section 269FB(2). Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty of the attempted murder charge but was declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA.

The primary legal issues in this case revolved around the defendant's mental competency at the time of the alleged offence and whether the objective elements of attempted murder were established beyond reasonable doubt. The court needed to ascertain whether the defendant was mentally capable of understanding the nature and quality of his act, or if he was incapable of doing so due to mental illness or defect. Additionally, the court had to determine if the prosecution had proven the objective elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. The resolution of these issues was critical in deciding the defendant's criminal liability and the appropriate legal outcome.

In its reasoning, the court accepted the psychiatric evidence presented and found that the defendant was indeed mentally incompetent to commit the offence of attempted murder, aligning with Section 269FA(5)(b) of the CLCA. However, the court also found that the objective elements of the offence were established beyond reasonable doubt, as required by Section 269FB(2). Therefore, the defendant was found not guilty of the offence of attempted murder but was declared liable to supervision under the relevant provisions of the CLCA. The court then proceeded to order the defendant's detention under Section 269O(1)(b) of the Act, pending the fixing of a limiting term. The court also mandated reports from the Minister for Health and Wellbeing and the prosecution, as required by Sections 269Q and 269R of the Act, respectively. Finally, the court ordered a report under Section 269T of the Act. These findings were delivered with the assistance of an interpreter.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Accordingly, I record a finding pursuant to s 269FB(2) of the Act that the objective elements of the offence are established beyond reasonable doubt. Not guilty findings and declaration Having found the objective elements established pursuant to s 269FB(3) of the Act, I find Mr Alizada not guilty of the offence of attempted murder but declare him liable to supervision under Division 4 Subdivision 2 of the Act.Supervision order Having found Mr Alizada liable to supervision, I make a supervision order committing him to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b) of the Act. Pursuant to s 269O(2) of the Act, I must fix a limiting term, being the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed if Mr Alizada had been convicted of the offence. I will hear submissions on the fixing of a limiting term on a date to be agreed with counsel. Upon the making of the supervision order, the Minister for Health and Wellbeing must provide the Court with a report from a psychiatrist regarding Mr Alizada’s diagnosis, prognosis and suggested treatment pursuant to s 269Q of the Act. The prosecution will provide reports pursuant to s 269R of the Act. I also order a report pursuant to s 269T of the Act. These findings were delivered with the assistance of an interpreter.