R v Burfield (No 3) - [2006] SASC 97

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BURFIELD (No 3)
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
7 April 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY - DISEASE OF THE MIND, MENTAL DISEASE OR MENTAL INFIRMITY
Defendant found not guilty of attempted murder on the ground of mental incompetence - declared liable to supervision - limiting term to be fixed for supervision order - consideration of legislative scheme of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) - consideration of purpose of limiting term and process of fixing limiting term - Court fixed limiting term of 11 years.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, s 269FB, s 269O, s 269P, s 269R, s 269T; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10; Mental Health Act 1993 (SA) s 12, referred to.
R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438; R v Burfield (No 2) [2005] SASC 439; R v Weiss [2005] SASC 338; R v T (1999) 75 SASR 235; Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339, considered.

R v BURFIELD (No 3)
[2006] SASC 97
Criminal
GRAY J:
Introduction

On 10 September 2004, Mark Andrew Burfield was charged with the attempted murder of his mother, Rae Carmel Burfield. He was also charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
At the trial (conducted by Judge alone) it was contended that Mr Burfield was mentally incompetent to commit the charged offences. On 15 September 2005, I concluded that mental incompetence had been established on the balance of probabilities. [1]
[1] R v Burfield [2005] SASC 438.
In accordance with section 269FB(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), I then considered the objective elements of attempted murder.[2] I concluded that the objective elements had been established. Following the publication of this conclusion, the Crown accepted that there was no need for the court to proceed to consider the alternative charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
[2] R v Burfield (No.2) [2005] SASC 439.
Mr Burfield, having been found not guilty of the offence of attempted murder on the ground of mental incompetence, was declared to be liable to supervision. A supervision order was consequently made pursuant to section 269O(1)(b). This order was the subject of my reasons in R v Burfield (No. 2).
A limiting term must now be fixed with respect to the supervision order. Section 269O relevantly provides:
(2)If a court makes a supervision order, the court must fix a term (a limiting term) equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision (or the aggregate period of imprisonment and supervision) that would, in the court's opinion, have been appropriate if the defendant had been convicted of the offence of which the objective elements have been established¹.
(3)At the end of the limiting term, a supervision order in force against the defendant under this Division lapses.
Note—
1The court…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Burfield (No 3) [2006] SASC 97
Case: [2006] SASC 97
Decision Date: 7 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Burfield (No 3), the defendant, Burfield, was found not guilty of attempted murder on the basis of mental incompetence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate limiting term for the supervision order under the provisions of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The court needed to balance the need for public safety with the defendant's mental health needs and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the legislative scheme and the purpose of setting a limiting term for a supervision order when the defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental incompetence. The court had to consider the defendant's mental health history, the nature of the offence, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court was also required to apply the relevant statutory provisions and any relevant case law to determine an appropriate term.

The court considered the defendant's mental health history, the nature of the offence, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court held that the primary purpose of the limiting term was to ensure public safety while also considering the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society. After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate limiting term for the supervision order was 11 years. The court emphasised the importance of the defendant's continued mental health treatment and monitoring during this period. The court's decision reflects a careful balance between the need for public safety and the defendant's rights and needs.

Orders