Legal Research
Cases
R v Bailiff

R v Bailiff

Case [2002] ACTSC 79 16 August 2002

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

THE QUEEN v ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BAILIFF [2002] ACTSC 79 (16 August 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – accused found unfit to plead – special hearing of charges – nature of hearing – issue whether the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused “committed the acts which constitute the offence charged” – inferences not to be drawn against accused due to failure to give evidence - need for special caution in scrutinising the evidence.
CRIMINAL LAW – accused found unfit to plead – particular difficulties when accused suffering from significant mental impairment or psychiatric illness at the time of the alleged offence – belief of accused that it was necessary to act as he did in self-defence – requirement of reasonable grounds for belief – test of reasonableness partly objective – reasonableness judged by reference to circumstances as accused perceived them to be but must be possibility that some action actually occurred which could have been mistaken as a threat or danger to the accused.
CRIMINAL LAW - special hearing by judge alone – whether acts constituting offences of assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Crimes Act 1900, ss 310, 314, 315, 316, 317, subs 319(2)
Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994, subs 68(3)
Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991
Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68C
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 144

R v Morris [2002] ACTSC 12 (unreported, Crispin J, 15 March 2002)
Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217
Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50
R v Knight (1988) 35 A Crim R 314
R v Williams (1990) 50 A Crim R 213
Coulter v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 350

R v Miller (1954) 2 QB 282

R v Chan-Fook [1994] 2 All ER 552

Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 642
R v B (1992) 35 FCR 259
Viro v R (1978) 141 CLR 88
R v Hawes (1994) 35 NSWLR 294
Kurtic (1996) 85 A Crim R 57
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (1999) 160 ALR 588

No. SCC 98 of 2000, SCC 173 of 2000, SCC 27 of 2001, SCC 37 of 2002

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 16 August 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
   )           No. SCC 98 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY            )           No. SCC 173 of 2000
   No. SCC 27 of 2001
   No. SCC 37 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v

ALEXANDER MARCEL ANDRE SEBASTIAN BAILIFF

ORDER

Judge:   Crispin J
Date:   16 August 2002
Place:   Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

the accused is not guilty of assaulting Ross Wentworth Stephens at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory on 11 January 2000;

2. the accused is not guilty of assaulting Douglas Scott Brown at Canberra in the said Territory on 11 January 2000;

3. the accused is not guilty of assaulting Susan Joan McGee at Canberra in the said Territory on 11 January 2000 and…

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 Bailiff

Details

AGLC: R v Bailiff [2002] ACTSC 79
Case: [2002] ACTSC 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves the special hearing of Alexander Marcel Andre Sebastian Bailiff, who was found unfit to plead, and who was charged with multiple counts of assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was heard by Justice Crispin of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court had to determine whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bailiff committed the acts constituting the offence charged in each of the counts. The court had to consider the nature of the offences, the concept of self-defence, and the evidence presented by both the Crown and the defence.

The court found that Bailiff was not guilty of assaulting Ross Wentworth Stephens, Douglas Scott Brown, and Susan Joan McGee, as there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the acts constituting the offence charged were committed. However, the court found Bailiff guilty of assaulting Daniel Gold, Anthony Kidney, and John Alex Beaton, and of assaulting Beaton occasioning actual bodily harm.

The court highlighted the importance of special caution when scrutinising evidence in cases where the accused is found unfit to plead and has significantly disordered or impaired mental processes. The court also emphasized that the accused does not bear the burden of proving self-defence, and that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not believe that it was reasonably necessary to act in self-defence or that there were no reasonable grounds for such a belief. The court further explained that the test for reasonable grounds for a belief in self-defence is partly objective, but must be judged by reference to the accused's perception of the circumstances as they appeared to him.

In conclusion, the court acquitted Bailiff of three counts of assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but found him guilty of assaulting Daniel Gold, Anthony Kidney, and John Alex Beaton, and of assaulting Beaton occasioning actual bodily harm. The court will hear counsel as to the orders that should be made in light of these findings.

Orders