R v Cardillo - [2007] SADC 82

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CARDILLO
[2007] SADC 82
Reasons for the Order of His Honour Judge Nicholson
14 August 2007
CRIMINAL LAW
Investigation into mental competence to commit two offences of threatening life - decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt - decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offences the defendant was suffering a mental impairment and, in consequence of that mental impairment, he did not know that the conduct was wrong - defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offences and declared to be liable to supervision - limiting term of 3 years fixed - supervision order made releasing defendant on licence on conditions decided by the court and specified in the licence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss19(1), Part 8A referred to; R v Brown [2006] SADC 82, referred to.

R v CARDILLO
[2007] SADC 82
Introduction

Patrick Cardillo was charged on an Information in this court with two counts of threatening life contrary to s19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the Act”). The particulars of each offence are the same, namely that,
Patrick Cardillo on 20^th day of March 2006 at Blair Athol, without lawful excuse, threatened to kill Parkash Chand, intending to arouse a fear that the threat was likely to be carried out, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether such a fear was aroused.
The defendant raised the defence of mental incompetence, at the relevant time, to have committed the charged offences. On 20 April 2007 I found the defendant not guilty of the charged offences on the ground of mental incompetence and declared that he was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act. Pursuant to s269O of the Act I have decided to fix a limiting term of 3 years and to release the defendant on conditional licence. These are my reasons. Throughout, I refer to Mr Cardillo as either the accused or the defendant.
The alleged offending
The fact that the accused committed the objective elements of the two offences is not in dispute and I will therefore refer to Mr Parkash Chand as the victim and notwithstanding that I have found the accused to be not guilty of each offence by reason of mental incompetence. The victim is the proprietor of a business, “Indian Temptations”, located in Main North Road, Blair Athol. He leases the shop from his (residential) next door neighbours who are the parents of the accused. On Monday, 20 March 2006, at about 1am the accused came through the back door of the restaurant; he picked up a seven inch chefs knife that was on the bench and said words to the effect “I’m going to kill you” and “I’m going to go to your house and burn it down”. He approached the victim and pointed the knife at the victim’s stomach. It touched him but did not cause any pain. He further said, “Fuck…

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 Cardillo

Details

AGLC: R v Cardillo [2007] SADC 82
Case: [2007] SADC 82
Decision Date: 14 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patrick Cardillo was charged with two counts of threatening life contrary to the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The defence of mental incompetence was raised, and the District Court of South Australia determined to address the issue of mental competence before proceeding with the objective elements of the offences. The court found that Cardillo was suffering from a mental impairment, namely bipolar mood disorder involving mania with psychotic thinking, which rendered him unable to know that his conduct was wrong. Consequently, Cardillo was declared mentally incompetent to commit the offences and liable to supervision.

The court then proceeded to establish the objective elements of the offences of threatening life, finding that Cardillo had indeed engaged in the conduct that satisfied the objective elements of the charges. However, the court also found that the threats made by Cardillo were not made with lawful excuse. Ultimately, the court found Cardillo not guilty of the charged offences on the ground of mental incompetence and declared him liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act. The court fixed a limiting term of 3 years and released Cardillo on conditional licence.

The court considered various reports and expert opinions, including psychiatric assessments and reports from Community Corrections, to determine the appropriate conditions for Cardillo's release on licence. The conditions essentially mirrored those contained in a previous order for release on licence, with some variations and additions. The court also took into account the views of the victim and next of kin, as well as Cardillo's personal circumstances and history of prior offending.

In summary, the District Court of South Australia found Patrick Cardillo not guilty of the charged offences of threatening life due to his mental incompetence at the time of the alleged offences. The court declared him liable to supervision and released him on conditional licence, with a limiting term of 3 years.

Orders