R v Angel

The Supreme Court of South Australia, constituted by Gray, David and Peek JJ, heard an appeal by Mr Angel. Mr Angel had been found not guilty of aggravated indecent assault on the grounds of mental incompetence. The trial involved two key findings: first, that the objective elements of the offence were proven beyond reasonable doubt, and second, that Mr Angel was mentally incompetent to commit the offence on the balance of probabilities. Mr Angel’s appeal was specifically against the finding that the objective elements of the offence were established.

The central legal issues before the court concerned the admissibility of expert evidence regarding Mr Angel's mental state and the proper procedure for trials involving mental competence and the objective elements of an offence. Specifically, the court had to determine whether expert evidence of bipolar disorder could be admitted if it relied on the assumed truth of a witness's account of Mr Angel's behaviour, and how such "intermediate facts" should be treated by the fact-finder. Furthermore, the court considered the scope of its appellate powers under section 269Y of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, particularly in relation to setting aside findings not directly challenged in the grounds of appeal.

The court reasoned that expert evidence of Mr Angel's bipolar disorder on the relevant date could only be admissible if it was based on material independent of the assumed truth of Ms Andrews' evidence. If such independent evidence were admitted, the finding of bipolar disorder would constitute an intermediate fact that the tribunal of fact could only act upon if proven beyond reasonable doubt, without reference to Ms Andrews' allegations. The court also noted that section 269F of the Act contemplates separate trials for mental competence and objective elements, with the trial judge having a discretion as to the order of these trials.

Allowing the appeal, the court set aside both the finding that the objective elements of the offence were established and the finding of mental incompetence. The court ordered that a retrial be held, with the trial judge to exercise discretion regarding the order of the separate trials for mental competence and objective elements.