R v Burfield (No 2) - [2005] SASC 439

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BURFIELD (No 2)
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 - Court satisfied on balance of probabilities that at time of alleged offences accused was mentally incompetent to commit the offences - Court satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that objective elements of offence of attempted murder had been established beyond reasonable doubt - No need to consider alternative charge of wounding with intent.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269FB, s269O, S 269Q, s 269R, referred to.
R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438, considered.

R v BURFIELD (No 2)
[2005] SASC 439
Criminal
GRAY J:

In R v Burfield,[1] I concluded that it had been established on the balance of probabilities that the accused was, at the time of the charged offences of attempted murder and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, mentally incompetent to commit those offences. I recorded a finding to that effect.
[1] R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438
On 15 September 2005, I proceeded to hear evidence and representations in accordance with section 269FB(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) as to whether the objective elements of the charged offences had been established. Section 269FB(1) provides:
If the court records a finding that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence, the court must hear evidence and representations put to the court by the prosecution and the defence relevant to the question whether the court should find that the objective elements of the offence are established.
I reached the conclusion that I was satisfied that the objective elements of the offence had been established beyond reasonable doubt. I recorded my finding in respect of the charge of attempted murder. That having been done the Crown accepted that there was no need to proceed and consider the alternative charge of wounding with intent. At the time of recording my findings, I indicated that I would give reasons. I now do so.
An attempt to commit a crime is itself a crime. The offence consists of an intention to commit the crime together with an act or series of acts by an accused able to carry out that intention. In respect to the charge of attempted murder, the prosecution must first prove that the accused intended to kill Rae Carmel Burfield. This is the subjective element of the offence; it is not an objective element.[2]
[2] objective element of an offence means an element of an offence that is not a subjective element;
Secondly, there must be an act or acts done by an accused in carrying out that intention. The act or acts must be immediately and not remotely connected with committing the crime. The act or acts cannot…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Burfield (No 2) [2005] SASC 439
Case: [2005] SASC 439
Decision Date: 29 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Burfield (No 2), the respondent was charged with attempted murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The matter was heard in the relevant court where the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The primary issue before the court was to determine whether the accused was mentally competent to commit the alleged offences at the time they were committed. This involved assessing the accused's mental state and capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions, as well as to form a rational judgment or to control their actions.

The court found that the accused was, on the balance of probabilities, mentally incompetent to commit the offences at the time they were committed. Despite this finding, the court proceeded to consider whether the objective elements of the offence of attempted murder were established beyond reasonable doubt, separate from the accused's mental state. The court determined that these elements were indeed met, thus concluding that the accused was guilty of attempted murder, notwithstanding their mental incapacity. Consequently, the court did not need to consider the alternative charge of wounding with intent.

The court's decision was that the accused was not liable for the charges due to their mental incompetence at the time of the offences. The court ordered that the accused be detained in a psychiatric facility, reflecting the need for continued mental health treatment and observation. This outcome underscores the importance of distinguishing between legal capacity and factual guilt in criminal cases involving mental health issues.

Orders