R v Bayley - [2013] SADC 103

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BAYLEY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 103
Reasons for the Order of His Honour Judge Soulio
9 August 2013
CRIMINAL LAW
Defendant charged with one count of arson - investigation into mental competence to commit an offence - decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence the defendant was suffering a mental impairment - defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offence - objective elements established beyond reasonable doubt - declared liable to supervision - limiting term of five years - supervision order made releasing the defendant on licence on conditions decided by the Court and specified in the licence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 85, Part 8A; Cross Border Regulations 2009, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267, considered.

R v BAYLEY
[2013] SADC 103

The defendant, Scott Bayley, was charged with one count of arson, contrary to s 85(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (‘CLCA’) said to have been committed on 1 September 2011.
Circumstances of the Offending
In the early hours of the morning of 1 September 2011 the defendant drove to the BP service station on Main North Road at Willaston. He parked his vehicle next to a petrol pump, took a hose from the pump and sprayed petrol into his vehicle and onto the area around his vehicle. He then told the service station employee on duty to leave and to call the police, which that person did. The defendant set fire to the petrol, which caused significant damage to the vehicle and to the surrounding area.
When police attended the scene they found the defendant lying on the south bound lane of Main North Road, about 50 metres away from the service station. The defendant was naked from the waist down, and was complaining of pain to his lower legs which had obvious burn injuries. The defendant said to police “I did it, I did it, I wanted to get away from the man who wanted to shoot me with a gun.”
The Hearing
The defendant was first arraigned in this court on 14 January 2013 when he pleaded not guilty. On the basis of a report dated 2 November 2012, from Dr Jules Begg, psychiatrist, an issue was raised as to the mental competence of the defendant to commit the offence, and a further psychiatric report was ordered, from Dr Mohan, pursuant so s 269T CLCA. An addendum report from Dr Begg was also ordered. The matter proceeded to an initial hearing on 22 April 2013.
Pursuant to s 269B CLCA, an investigation into a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence, or into whether the elements of the offence have been established, is to be conducted before a jury unless the defendant has elected to have the matter dealt with by a judge sitting alone. Counsel for the defendant applied for the matter to proceed to trial…

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 Bayley

Details

AGLC: R v Bayley [2013] SADC 103
Case: [2013] SADC 103
Decision Date: 9 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Scott Bayley was charged with one count of arson, contrary to s 85(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The defendant set fire to his vehicle at a BP service station on 1 September 2011, causing significant damage. The defendant was found to be naked from the waist down, with burn injuries, and confessed to the crime. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was mentally competent to commit the offence at the time of the offence and, if not, what the appropriate disposition should be. The court heard evidence from two psychiatrists, Dr Begg and Dr Mohan, who both concluded that the defendant was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the offence, rendering him unable to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct. Both psychiatrists considered that the defendant suffered from schizophrenia, and was not able to reason about the wrongfulness of his conduct with a moderate degree of sense and composure. The court found the defendant to be mentally incompetent to commit the offence and proceeded to determine whether the objective elements of the offence had been established. The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the objective elements of the offence were established, and declared the defendant liable to supervision. The court made a supervision order releasing the defendant on licence on conditions specified by the court and set a limiting term of five years.

The court considered the recommendations of the psychiatrists and the material obtained by the social worker, and concluded that the defendant should be released on licence subject to a series of strict conditions. The defendant was to be under the care of a psychiatrist, and under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer. The defendant was to continue his medication, and submit to random screening of his blood to ensure compliance with medication. The defendant was also to be under the supervision of a Case Manager appointed by the Community Mental Health Team. The defendant was to reside at Hindmarsh Care Lodge, and not change his residence without permission of the Parole Board. The defendant was not to depart from South Australia without the prior written permission of the Parole Board, and was not to possess a firearm, ammunition or any part of a firearm. The defendant was also to submit to tests, including testing without notice, for gunshot residue.

Orders