R v Bober (No 2)

Case [2008] SASC 250


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal: Application)

R v BOBER (No 2)

[2008] SASC 250

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray

19 September 2008

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED - OTHER MATTERS

Defendant found unfit to stand trial with respect to charge of attempted murder, pursuant to section 269MA(5)(b) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – nolle prosequi entered on attempted murder charge and new charge of aggravated causing serious harm with intent laid against defendant – application by defendant for a finding to be recorded that she is mentally unfit to stand trial with respect to charge of aggravated causing serious harm with intent.

Held: investigation into defendant’s fitness to stand trial dispensed with by consent – finding that defendant mentally unfit to stand trial recorded pursuant to section 269MA(5)(b) Criminal Law Consolidation Act – declaration that defendant is liable to supervision under Part 8A Criminal Law Consolidation Act made pursuant to section 269MB(2) Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 23(1), s 269MA(5)(b), s 269MB(1) and s 269MB(2), referred to.

R v BOBER (No 2)
[2008] SASC 250

Criminal

GRAY J.

  1. In this matter, at a time when Sandra Kaye Bober was charged with attempted murder, I made an order on 19 June 2008 recording my finding that, pursuant to section 269MA(5)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), Ms Bober was mentally unfit to stand trial.

  2. Since that time, a new information has been laid alleging Ms Bober committed the offence of aggravated unlawfully causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm contrary to section 23(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.  A nolle prosequi has now been entered in regard to the earlier charge of attempted murder.

  3. I have taken the view that I need to make a separate finding of unfitness to stand trial with respect to the new information.

  4. I have had regard to the evidence before the Court on the earlier occasion and the further report of Dr Andrew Czechowicz of 29 July 2008. I also note that the prosecution and the defence agree that I can dispense with any investigation into the defendant’s fitness to stand trial in respect of the charge of aggravated unlawfully causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm.

  5. In these circumstances, I formally record my finding, pursuant to section 269MA(5)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, that the defendant, Sandra Kaye Bober, is mentally unfit to stand trial in respect of the charge of aggravated unlawfully causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm.

  6. I have received evidence, pursuant to section 269MB(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, by the prosecution and defence relevant to the question of whether a finding should be recorded that the objective elements of the offence were established.

  7. Having regard to the tendered evidence including the statement of agreed facts, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the objective elements of the offence charged – namely, the offence of aggravated unlawfully causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm contrary to section 23(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act – have been established.  I record my finding in those terms.

  8. Pursuant to section 269MB(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, I declare that Sandra Kaye Bober is liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Details
AGLC
R v Bober (No 2) [2008] SASC 250
Case
[2008] SASC 250
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bober (No 2), the defendant faced charges related to a serious assault. The dispute centred around her fitness to stand trial for these charges, specifically whether she was mentally capable of participating in her defence. The case was heard in the South Australian Supreme Court.

The central legal issue was the determination of the defendant's mental fitness to stand trial for the charge of aggravated causing serious harm with intent, following an earlier determination of unfitness to stand trial for a charge of attempted murder. This involved interpreting and applying the relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections 269MA(5)(b) and 269MB(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).

The court held that the investigation into the defendant's fitness to stand trial was dispensed with by consent, and that a finding of mental unfitness to stand trial was recorded for the charge of aggravated causing serious harm with intent. Consequently, a declaration was made that the defendant was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. This outcome was reached based on the statutory criteria for determining mental fitness to stand trial and the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state.

The court's final orders included the entry of a nolle prosequi on the attempted murder charge, the laying of a new charge of aggravated causing serious harm with intent, and the recording of a finding that the defendant was mentally unfit to stand trial for the new charge. The court also made a declaration that the defendant was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.