R v Bailey - [2011] NSWSC 1228

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bailey [2011] NSWSC 1228
Hearing dates: 11/10/2011
Decision date: 11 October 2011
Before: Garling J
Decision:
1. I find the accused, Sean Hai Bailey, is unfit to be tried.
2. In accordance with s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I refer this matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
3. In accordance with s 14(b)(iii) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I remand Mr Bailey in custody until the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, pursuant to s 16 of that Act.
4. I direct the Registrar of the Supreme Court to provide the following documentation to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within seven days:
(a) a copy of this finding and my reasons;
(b) a copy of the orders which I have made;
(c) a copy of the transcript of these proceedings;
(d) a copy of the psychiatric reports of Professor Greenburg which are exhibits in these proceedings; and
(e) a copy of the Crown Case Statement.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Accused charged with murder - Whether fit to be tried - Undisputed medical evidence that accused unfit to be tried - Chronic Schizoaffective Disorder - Referred to Mental Health Review Tribunal - No issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health Act (1990) (repealed)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Eastman v R (2000) 203 CLR 1
Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230
R v Presser (1958) VR 45
R v Robinson [2008] NSWCCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Sean Hai Bailey
File Number(s): 2010/277494

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Sean Hai Bailey is charged with one count of murder, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to the death of Allan Thomas Hall on 20 August 2010.

On 9 June 2011, Mr Bailey was committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court of NSW by the Local Court of NSW at Port Macquarie.

On 2 September 2011, Justice Latham determined, pursuant to s 8 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 that an inquiry should be conducted as to the question of Mr Bailey's unfitness to be tried for the offence of murder.

Accordingly, I have today, consequent upon the arraignment of Mr Bailey without a plea being taken, conducted an inquiry pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, as to whether Mr Bailey is unfit to be tried for the offence.

At this inquiry the Crown has been represented, and as well Ms Manuell of Senior Counsel has appeared for Mr Bailey.

Principles of Law

There are a number of principles of law that are relevant to this inquiry. Those principles, which affect the conduct of the inquiry, are these:

(a) the question of unfitness is to be determined on the balance of probabilities: s 6 of the Act ;

(b) the inquiry is not to be conducted, and was…

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 Bailey

Details

AGLC: R v Bailey [2011] NSWSC 1228
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1228
Decision Date: 11 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the criminal trial of an individual charged with murder. The primary dispute centred on the accused's fitness to stand trial, given their chronic Schizoaffective Disorder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court. The central legal issue was whether the accused was fit to be tried for the offence of murder, considering the medical evidence provided. This required the court to consider the statutory framework governing fitness to be tried and the appropriate procedural steps to follow when an accused's fitness is in question.

The court examined the evidence presented and found that there was no dispute over the medical assessment that the accused was unfit to be tried due to their mental condition. Given the clear and uncontested medical evidence, the court was required to determine the appropriate course of action in line with the statutory provisions. The court concluded that the proper procedure was to refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for further assessment and determination regarding the accused's fitness to be tried. The court found no issue of principle that would prevent such a referral.

The Supreme Court held that the accused was unfit to be tried for the offence of murder and ordered that the matter be referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. This decision was based on the undisputed medical evidence and the statutory requirements for handling cases where an accused's fitness to be tried is in question. The court's reasoning focused on the necessity to follow the prescribed legal processes to ensure that the rights of the accused were properly protected, while also addressing the serious nature of the charge.

Orders