R v Brown (No 2)

[2022] ACTSC 179

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Brown (No 2)

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 179

Hearing Date(s):

25 February 2022

DecisionDate:

25 February 2022

Before:

Elkaim ACJ

Decision:

(a) The matter is adjourned to allow the Crown to obtain further assessment of the offender’s mental impairment.

(b) The matter is listed for mention at 9:30 am on 15 March 2022.

(c) The matter is listed for further hearing on 25 May 2022.

(d) Bail is continued on the same conditions.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Plea of Guilty – where the offender relies on a medical opinion that indicates the offender is not guilty due to mental impairment – where the offender maintains a plea of guilty despite the medical opinion – whether a judge should accept or reject the plea of guilty – matter adjourned to allow the Crown to obtain further medical assessment of the offender

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 27

Cases Cited:

R v Naden [2013] NSWSC 541

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; A Crim R 308

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

J Brown (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

T Hickey (Crown)

J Purnell SC (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aulich Criminal (Offender)

File Number(s):

SCC 84 of 2020

Elkaim ACJ

1. This matter was originally before me on the 15 October 2021. On that date, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the offender in order to obtain some medical material that was not present.

1. There was also no pre-sentence report. I took the view that the pre-sentence report would be helpful. Accordingly, I adjourned the matter until a new sentence date of 25 February 2022 was obtained. In the meantime, medical material was gathered. For present purposes, the significant part of that material is a report by Prof Boer, a psychologist, who provided a supplementary report dated 13 February 2022 which was served on the Crown on 16 February 2022.

1. In my view, the report is very significant. At line 581 of the report, Prof Boer says:

On balance, at the time of the offending behaviour, it is my opinion that Mr Brown was suffering from a mental impairment, under the meaning set out in Section 27 of the [Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)], with this mental impairment being a mental illness, namely Major Depressive Disorder and Alcohol Use Disorder, the combination of which had the effect that Mr Brown did not know that his conduct in relation to his offending behaviour at the time of the offences was wrong, as he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as seen by a reasonable person, was wrong at the time of the offences; and furthermore that Mr Brown could not control his conduct in relation to his offending behaviour at the time of the offences.

1. When I read that, it immediately struck me that what Prof Boer was saying was that Mr Brown…