R v Brown - [2011] SADC 186

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BROWN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2011] SADC 186
Reasons for the Orders of His Honour Judge Soulio
6 December 2011
CRIMINAL LAW
Investigation into mental competence to commit an offence - decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offences the defendant was suffering a mental impairment - decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt - defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offences and declared liable to supervision - limiting term of five years and nine months - supervision order made releasing defendant on licence on conditions decided by the Court and specified in the licence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7, referred to.
R v Sumner [2010] SASC 43; R v Bobner (No 3) [2010] SASC 31; R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267; R v T 75 SASR 235, considered.

R v BROWN
[2011] SADC 186
Background

The defendant, John Brown, was charged with the offence of aggravated robbery committed on 7 April 2010. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for life.
Circumstances of the Offending
At about 5.10pm on 7 April 2010 the proprietor of a hairdressing salon at the Parafield Gardens shopping centre, when closing the shop, observed two men watching her. She left the shop and walked onto a roadway behind the shopping centre and towards the local train station. She observed a vehicle drive past her and stop. The defendant got out and approached her. She recognised him as one of the men who had been watching her earlier.
The defendant demanded the victim’s bag and when she refused he showed her the knife in his hand and said “do you want to die?”. The victim then handed over her handbag. The defendant demanded her phone. She threw the phone into the front yard of a nearby house. The defendant retrieved the phone and then ran and entered the passenger seat of the vehicle she had seen drive past earlier.
The victim noted a partial registration number which enabled police to locate the defendant. The description she provided matched the defendant. A number of her belongings, which had been in her handbag at the time of the robbery, were located in the defendant’s vehicle, as was a knife.
Procedure
Counsel for the defendant presented material in support of an application to declare the defendant not guilty on the basis that he was mentally incompetent at the time of the offending.[1]
[1] Within the meaning of s 269C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The process for investigation by the Court of the defendant’s mental competence is governed by Part 8A of the Act. Pursuant to s 269B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the Act’), an investigation into a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence, or into whether elements of the offence have been…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2011] SADC 186
Case: [2011] SADC 186
Decision Date: 6 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of South Australia, John Brown was charged with aggravated robbery, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental incompetence, and a supervision order was made, releasing him on licence on certain conditions. The court was required to decide whether the defendant was mentally competent to commit the offence, and if so, whether the objective elements of the offence were established beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered medical reports and expert opinions to determine the defendant's mental competence at the time of the offence. The court found that the defendant was suffering from intellectual impairment and depression, which affected his ability to reason and appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. The court concluded that the defendant was not mentally competent to commit the offence. The objective elements of the offence were established beyond reasonable doubt, as the defendant's counsel conceded this fact. The court fixed a limiting term of five years and nine months, taking into account the defendant's compliance with home detention bail. The defendant was released on licence subject to a number of strict conditions, including medical and psychiatric treatment, supervision by a Community Corrections Officer, and restrictions on drug use and travel.
The final orders of the court include a supervision order releasing the defendant on licence on certain conditions, and a limiting term of five years and nine months. The defendant is to be under the care and direction of a psychiatrist, and comply with medical and psychiatric treatment and medication. The defendant is also to be supervised by a Community Corrections Officer and submit to random screening of his blood and drug testing. The defendant must not use, possess or administer any narcotic or psychotropic drug which is not medically prescribed, and must attend for assessment of his eligibility for services provided by Disability SA. The defendant's case is to be managed by the Forensic Community Team, and he must comply with all the lawful directions of that team. The defendant must not depart or attempt to depart from the State of South Australia without the prior written permission of the Parole Board.

Orders