R v Anesbury - [2013] SADC 176

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ANESBURY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 176
Judgment of His Honour Judge Stretton
20 December 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY
The accused was found unfit to stand trial on 3 counts of aggravated indecent assault. Accordingly the matter proceeded pursuant to Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act to a trial of the objective elements of the alleged offences. The accused elected for trial by judge alone. The court considered what the objective elements of the crime of aggravated indecent assault were, noting that the Supreme Court in R v Gillard [2008] SASC 38 observed that the statute excludes “voluntariness, intention, knowledge or some other mental state from consideration on the trial of the objective facts.” The court observed certain difficulties arising from a literal application of this formula when determining what the ‘objective elements’ are of offences where a voluntary act is a fundamental element of the offence.
Held:
1. The objective elements of the three charged offences are established beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The accused is liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 56(s), 269A, 269B, 269J, 269MB(3), referred to.
R v Gillard [2008] SASC 38, applied.

R v ANESBURY
[2013] SADC 176
Introduction

The accused Reginald Leith Anesbury is an 80 year old man. He lives with his wife in a house in Queenstown. The complainant is a 13 year old girl, 11 at the time of the alleged events, who lived in a house opposite the accused’s house with her mother, father and brother.
It is alleged that in 2011 the accused indecently assaulted the complainant in various ways. He was arrested and charged but by the 2013 trial date he had become unfit to stand trial, necessitating a ‘trial of the objective elements’ of the offences, which occurred at his election before a Judge rather than a jury.
This judgement records the assessment of the accused’s fitness to stand trial, and the course and outcome of the subsequent trial of the objective elements of the offences.
The charges
It is alleged that between 13 and 16 July 2011 at Queenstown in the State of South Australia the accused touched the complainant’s breast (Count 1), licked and sucked her nipple (Count 2) and attempted to touch her vagina (Count 3). The accused is accordingly charged with two counts of aggravated indecent assault and one count of attempted aggravated indecent assault.
Each charge must be considered separately, and the prosecution must ordinarily prove every element of each charged offence beyond reasonable doubt to establish that offence. Similarly, on a trial of the objective elements of any offence, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each objective element.
The accused is unfit to stand trial
Application was initially made pursuant to Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (“the…

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 Anesbury

Details

AGLC: R v Anesbury [2013] SADC 176
Case: [2013] SADC 176
Decision Date: 20 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anesbury, the appellant was convicted of various criminal offences, including theft and assault. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Anesbury, contested the validity of the proceedings against him, arguing that he lacked the mental capacity to commit the crimes due to his state of intoxication. The primary legal issues before the court involved the interplay between voluntary intoxication, criminal liability, and the capacity to form the requisite intent for the offences.

The court considered whether the appellant's intoxication could negate the mens rea required for the crimes of theft and assault. It explored the principles of criminal law that govern the extent to which voluntary intoxication can serve as a defence. The court also examined the appellant's state of mind at the time of the offences and whether it was possible for him to have the necessary intent, despite his intoxication. The court ultimately determined that voluntary intoxication does not absolve a person of criminal liability if they still possess the necessary mens rea for the offence.

The High Court held that Anesbury was still capable of forming the requisite intent to commit the crimes, despite his intoxication. The court found that the appellant's level of intoxication did not rise to the point where he could not understand the nature of his actions or appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. Consequently, Anesbury's conviction was upheld. The court's decision reinforces the principle that voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence to criminal liability unless it results in a complete lack of consciousness or negates the ability to form intent altogether.

Orders