R v Beck - [2007] SADC 45

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BECK
[2007] SADC 45
Reasons for the Order of His Honour Judge Lovell
2 May 2007
CRIMINAL LAW
Investigation into mental competence to commit an offence - the appropriate procedure and steps for an investigation into the defendant's mental competence to commit the offence considered - decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt - decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence the defendant was suffering a mental impairment and, in consequence of that mental impairment, he did not know that the conduct was wrong - defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offence and declared to be liable to supervision - limiting term of 18 months fixed - supervision order made releasing defendant on licence on conditions decided by the court and specified in the licence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 19(1), 19(2), Part 8A, referred to.
R v Cryan [2004] SADC 99; R v Davey (2006) 95 SASR 63, considered.

R v BECK
[2007] SADC 45
Introduction

The accused Robert Beck was charged on information in this court with one count of threatening life (s 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935) and one count of threatening to cause harm (s 19(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act).
It was indicated by defence counsel at a directions hearing that the defence of mental incompetence was to be raised. On 20 July 2006 his Honour Judge Boylan ordered reports be obtained pursuant to s 269WA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
Alleged Offending
On 11 and 12 November 2005 the accused telephoned the victim Allan Ebdell and asked for Michael Ebdell his brother. He wanted his telephone number. Allan Ebdell refused to disclose his brother’s telephone number. The accused then telephoned Allan Ebdell again and was verbally abusive towards him. Mr Allan Ebdell then allowed all further calls to be diverted to his message bank. The accused continued to telephone and left nine messages for him of a threatening nature. The messages included threats to have his associates in a motorcycle gang harm him and his family. The messages contained threats to shoot the victim and put him in a “pine box”.
When interviewed the accused said he did not make the telephone calls to the victim.
On 15 May 2006 before his Honour Judge Millsteed the accused pleaded not guilty. It was indicated on that date that a defence of mental incompetence may be raised.
The Proceedings
The procedure for an investigation by the court into a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence is contained within Part 8A – Mental Impairment of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
In relation to the procedure that I adopted in this matter I had regard to the judgment of his Honour Judge Muecke in R v Cryan[1]. I found his Honour’s distillation of the procedures to be adopted extremely helpful.
[1]

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 Beck

Details

AGLC: R v Beck [2007] SADC 45
Case: [2007] SADC 45
Decision Date: 2 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Beck was charged with threatening to cause harm and threatening life. Beck raised a defence of mental incompetence, and reports were ordered pursuant to s 269WA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The court was required to decide whether Beck was mentally competent to commit the offence and whether he was liable for supervision. The court found that the objective elements of the offences had been established beyond reasonable doubt and that Beck was mentally incompetent to commit the offence at the time of the offending. Beck was declared not guilty of the offence but liable to supervision. A supervision order was made releasing Beck on licence on conditions decided by the court and specified in the licence. The limiting term was fixed at 18 months.

The court considered the medical evidence and reports in making its findings. Beck had a history of chronic paranoid schizophrenia and an antisocial personality disorder. The experts were of the opinion that Beck's current treatment arrangements were adequate to control his symptoms. The court considered the seriousness of the offending, Beck's contrition, and the recommendations of the experts in determining the limiting term and conditions of the supervision order. The court found that Beck should be released on licence on conditions that included psychiatric review, compliance with treatment plans, avoiding illicit drugs, submitting to urine analysis, reporting to a supervising officer, and avoiding contact with the victim.

Orders