R v Bartley - [2017] NSWDC 384

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bartley [2017] NSWDC 384
Hearing dates: 8 March 2017 & 9 March 2017
Date of orders: 09 March 2017
Decision date: 09 March 2017
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:
The accused is found fit to be tried

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Fitness hearing
Cases Cited: Eastman v R (2000) 203 CLR 1 at [25]‑[26
R v Holt [2009] NSWDC 147
R v Taylor (1992) 77 Canadian Criminal Cases (3rd) 551
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Tumi Bartley
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G Turner – Crown
Ms P David – The accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown
Legal Aid Commission – The accused

File Number(s): 2016/62763

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This judgment concerns the fitness to be tried of Tumi Bartley, a woman who has been charged with an offence of wounding Andrew Hutchinson with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm with an alternative count of wounding him being reckless as to whether actual bodily harm would be caused to him.
As I understand it there is no dispute that Ms Bartley stabbed Mr Hutchinson nor is there any dispute that Ms Bartley is significantly mentally unwell, so unwell that she has difficulty accepting that situation. Dr Allnutt who has seen Ms Bartley twice says that she probably suffers from bipolar affective disorder with a differential diagnosis of schizo affective disorder. Ms Bartley provides a history of mood and psychotic symptoms. Her psychiatric history goes back to her early teens. She has had multiple admissions to psychiatric hospitals. She has been prescribed medication for many years and sometimes she is compliant and sometimes she is not. Indeed she was quite recently held in the screening unit. She is reluctant to take medication and given her present status she cannot be forced to do so.
An issue regarding her fitness was raised before she was arraigned. Proceedings commenced yesterday. They were conducted in a non‑adversarial way. Both Ms David who appears for Ms Bartley and the Crown took the appropriate attitude that their role was to assist me in coming to that right conclusion on the evidence before me. No party bears any onus of proof. What I have to decide on the balance of probabilities is whether Ms Bartley is fit to be tried.
There is no doubt that Ms Bartley satisfies many of the Presser tests. She has a good understanding of many aspects of the criminal trial, the role of the lawyers, the role of the judge, the role of the jury for example and so appropriately the lawyers have focussed their submissions on those aspects of the present case where it is suggested that Ms Bartley is not fit to be tried. She has been seen by two psychiatrists who prepared reports and gave oral evidence in Court yesterday, Dr Allnutt and Associate Professor Dean. Dr Allnutt, with qualifications, is of the opinion that Ms Bartley is fit to be tried. Associate Professor Dean is…

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 Bartley

Details

AGLC: R v Bartley [2017] NSWDC 384
Case: [2017] NSWDC 384
Decision Date: 09 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bartley, the accused faced a fitness hearing before the court. The individual's mental state was in question due to concerns about their ability to participate in the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether the accused was fit to be tried.

The legal issues the court needed to address included whether the accused's mental condition impaired their ability to understand the proceedings, to instruct counsel, or to participate in their defence. The court examined evidence from medical experts and considered the accused's overall behaviour and responses during the hearing.

The court found that, despite the accused's mental health issues, they were still capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings, communicating with their legal representatives, and participating in their defence. The evidence presented did not establish a significant enough impairment to prevent the accused from being fit to stand trial. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused was fit to be tried.

The final order of the court was that the accused was fit to be tried, allowing the criminal proceedings to proceed. The court recognised the need to balance the rights of the accused with the need for justice to be served.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found fit to be tried

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Bartley [2017] NSWDC 384
Hearing dates:	8 March 2017 & 9 March 2017
Date of orders:	09 March 2017
Decision date:	09 March 2017
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	The accused is found fit to be tried
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Fitness hearing
Cases Cited:	Eastman v R (2000) 203 CLR 1 at [25]‑[26 R v Holt [2009] NSWDC 147 R v Taylor (1992) 77 Canadian Criminal Cases (3rd) 551
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	The Crown Tumi Bartley
Representation:	Counsel: Ms G Turner – Crown Ms P David – The accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – The Crown Legal Aid Commission – The accused
File Number(s):	2016/62763