R v Burfield - [2005] SASC 438

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BURFIELD
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
29 November 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY - DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL INFIRMITY
Accused pleaded not guilty to attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - consideration of psychiatric evidence of accused's mental state at time of alleged offending - Court satisfied on balance of probabilities that at time of alleged offences accused was mentally incompetent to commit the offences.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269B, s 269F, referred to.
R v Larizza (2004) 90 SASR 104, considered.

R v BURFIELD
[2005] SASC 438
Criminal
GRAY J:

On 10 September 2004, the defendant, Mark Andrew Burfield, was charged with the attempted murder of his mother, Rae Carmel Burfield. The defendant was also charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty to both charges. An issue has arisen as to his mental competence to have committed the charged offences. [1]
[1] Three psychiatrists opined that the defendant was fit to plead and stand trial. For instance, Dr Tomasic concluded: “In my opinion Mr Burfield is currently fit to stand trial. I consider that he was mentally incompetent to commit the offences on the basis of suffering a mental impairment, namely psychosis related to Chronic Schizophrenia and amphetamine induced psychosis. I consider he did not know that his conduct was wrong and was unable to control his conduct”.
Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) proscribes the procedures to be followed in the hearing and determination of the issue of mental competence. Part 8A has been described as a comprehensive manual of law and procedure relevant to a defendant’s fitness to stand trial and the defence of mental impairment.[2]
[2] R v Larizza (2004) 90 SASR 104.
Pursuant to section 269B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the defendant elected to have his trial dealt with by a judge sitting alone.
Section 269F sets out the procedure to be followed when a trial judge decides that the defendant’s mental competence to commit the charged offences is to be tried first. I made that decision in this case. Section 269F relevantly provides:
(1)     The court—
(a)must hear relevant evidence and representations put to the court by the prosecution and the defence on the question of the defendant's mental competence to commit the offence; and
(b)may require the defendant to undergo an examination by a psychiatrist or other appropriate expert and require the results of the examination to be reported to the court.
(2)     The power to require an examination and report under subsection (1)(b) may be exercised—
(a)    on the application of the prosecution or the defence; or
(b)if the judge considers the examination and report necessary to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice—on the judge's own initiative.
(3)     At the conclusion of the…

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 Burfield

Details

AGLC: R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438
Case: [2005] SASC 438
Decision Date: 29 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Burfield involved a criminal defendant who was charged with attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The defendant pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of insanity, claiming that at the time of the offences, he was mentally incompetent to commit the crimes. The court had to consider psychiatric evidence regarding the defendant's mental state at the relevant time.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the defendant was suffering from a disease of the mind, mental disease, or mental infirmity at the time of the alleged offences, which would render him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts or of knowing that what he was doing was wrong. The court had to weigh the psychiatric evidence and determine whether the defendant's mental incompetence was established on the balance of probabilities.

After carefully considering the psychiatric evidence presented, the court was satisfied that the defendant was indeed mentally incompetent at the time of the alleged offences. The court found that the defendant's mental state rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts or knowing that what he was doing was wrong. Consequently, the court found the defendant not guilty of the charges on the basis of insanity.

The court's decision was based on the psychiatric evidence presented, which demonstrated that the defendant suffered from a mental condition that impaired his ability to comprehend the nature of his actions or their wrongfulness. As a result, the court acquitted the defendant on the charges of attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm due to his mental incapacity at the time of the alleged offences.

Orders