R v Burnett - [2015] ACTSC 400

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Burnett
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 400
Hearing Date(s):	21 – 22 September, 16 December 2015
DecisionDate:	16 December 2015
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	See [122] – [125]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – unauthorised possession or use of prohibited weapons – damage to property – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – acts endangering life – possess offensive weapon with intent – dangerous driving – trial by judge alone – defence of mental impairment – found not guilty by reason of mental impairment.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 308, 324, 381 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 60, 79, 136 Magistrates Court Act 1989 (ACT) ss 90B, 309 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 7 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C
Cases Cited:	Mulcahy v R [2012] ACTCA 3 Mule v R (2005) 221 ALR 85 Queen v Barker [2014] ACTSC 153 R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 R v Cox [2006] SASC 188 R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182 R v White (2003) 7 VR 442 The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Burnett (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) S & T Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 283 of 2014; SCC 238A of 2014

Robinson AJ:

Offences

Mr Burnett was arraigned on an indictment containing four counts:

On 19 September 2014 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory David Percival Burnett possessed a prohibited weapon and was not authorised by permit, or otherwise by the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), to possess the weapon.
And further that on 19 September 2014 at Canberra aforesaid David Percival Burnett caused damage to property belonging to someone else, namely UXC Limited, and intended to cause, or was reckless about causing, damage to that property or any other property belonging to someone else.
And further that on 19 September 2014 at Canberra aforesaid David Percival Burnett recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm on Michael Munn.
And further that on 19 September 2014 at Canberra aforesaid David Percival Burnett intentionally and unlawfully threw or otherwise used an inflammable substance in circumstances likely to endanger human life or cause a person grievous bodily harm.

To this indictment Mr Burnett pleaded not guilty by reason of the fact that he was suffering from mental impairment at the time of the offences.

In addition to the above, two further charges were transferred, as related charges, pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1989 (ACT). These were possess offensive weapon with intent (s 381 (1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and dangerous driving (s 7 (1) of Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT)). The parties agreed I should proceed upon the basis that the same plea had been entered to those offences.

Counsel for Mr Burnett conceded that…

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 Burnett

Details

AGLC: R v Burnett [2015] ACTSC 400
Case: [2015] ACTSC 400
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burnett was charged with multiple offences, including possessing an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, causing damage to property, and engaging in dangerous driving. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issues for the court to determine were Burnett’s criminal responsibility and the applicability of the defence of mental impairment. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Burnett's mental state at the time of the offences met the criteria for being found not guilty by reason of mental impairment under section 304.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court examined expert psychiatric evidence and took into account Burnett’s history of mental illness. It found that Burnett suffered from a severe mental impairment that affected his ability to understand the nature and quality of his acts and to know that what he was doing was wrong. The court concluded that Burnett was not criminally responsible for the offences due to his mental impairment. The court found that his actions, while unlawful, were a result of his mental condition and not a rational exercise of free will. This finding led to Burnett being acquitted and the application of the provisions for those found not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

The court ordered Burnett to be detained under the Mental Health Act, with a review of his detention to be conducted every six months. Additionally, it directed that Burnett's mental health treatment and care be overseen by relevant health authorities. These measures were intended to ensure that Burnett received appropriate care while also protecting the public from potential harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [122] – [125]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.