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 250Criminal
GRAY J.
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.
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.
I have taken the view that I need to make a separate finding of unfitness to stand trial with respect to the new information.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
- AGLC
- R v Bober (No 2) [2008] SASC 250
- Case
- [2008] SASC 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GRAY J
Full text does not contain this section.