R v Charles Robert Moyano - [2015] NSWSC 1444

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Charles Robert Moyano
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 1444
Hearing Date(s):	28 September 2015
Date of Orders:	28 September 2015
Decision Date:	28 September 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Mathews AJ
Decision:	1. Pursuant to section 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (“the Act”) I formally find that the accused, Charles Robert Moyano, is unfit to be tried for the offence of murder of Keith William Lee on 5 December 2014. 2. In accordance with s 14 of the Act, I refer this matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. 3. Pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of the Act, I remand the accused in custody, pending the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 16 of the Act. 4. I direct the Supreme Court Registry to provide the following documentation to the Tribunal: a. A copy of these findings; b. A copy of any orders made for detention; c. A transcript of these proceedings; d. A copy of the Crown papers tendered at this enquiry which include: i. A copy of any psychiatric reports tendered to the Court during these proceedings, and ii. The Crown Case Statement. e. Any other exhibits tendered to the Court in the enquiry.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – murder – fitness to be tried – “Presser” principles – accused unfit to be tried
Legislation Cited:	Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited:	R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Crown Charles Robert Moyano
Representation:	Counsel: T Bailey (Crown) C Loukas SC (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s):	2014/359290
Publication Restriction:	Not Applicable

Judgment

The accused, Charles Robert Moyano, has been committed for trial on a charge that on 5 December 2014, he murdered Keith Lee. An issue has been raised as to the accused's mental condition, both at the time of the alleged offence and continuing to the present. Accordingly, on 11 September 2015, an order was made that an enquiry should be conducted as to the accused's fitness to be tried for this offence.
The hearing of that enquiry this morning has been very brief indeed, as both counsel, Mr Bailey, for the Crown, and Ms Loukas of senior counsel for the defence, are in agreement as to the appropriate finding, and the vast majority of the relevant documentation had been provided to me in advance of the hearing.
The accused has been interviewed by psychiatrists on behalf of both the Crown and the defence, in order to assess his fitness to be tried for this offence. Dr Adam Martin saw the accused on behalf of the defence on 17 April 2015 and submitted a report dated 23 April 2015. Dr Olav Nielssen saw him on behalf of the Crown on 3 June 2015 and submitted a report on 16 June 2015. Both psychiatrists considered that the accused suffers from a mental illness, although…

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 Charles Robert Moyano

Details

AGLC: R v Charles Robert Moyano [2015] NSWSC 1444
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1444
Decision Date: 28 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Charles Robert Moyano involved a dispute concerning the fitness of the accused to be tried for the murder of a young girl. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Moyano was charged with murder but had a history of mental illness, including schizophrenia. The central legal issue before the court was whether Moyano was fit to be tried for the offence of murder, taking into account his mental health condition and the relevant legal principles.

The court was required to apply the "Presser" principles, which are used to determine the fitness of an accused person to be tried. These principles include an assessment of whether the accused understands the nature and object of the proceedings, whether they can instruct and act with a lawyer, and whether they can comprehend the evidence and give instructions. The court also considered whether Moyano's mental condition was such that a fair trial was possible. After hearing expert evidence from psychiatrists and considering the totality of the circumstances, the court determined that Moyano was unfit to be tried due to his severe mental illness.

The Supreme Court of Victoria concluded that Moyano's mental health condition prevented him from understanding the proceedings, communicating with his legal representatives, or participating in his defence. The court held that a fair trial was not possible given the severity of his schizophrenia and the likelihood that it would persist. As a result, the court found Moyano unfit to be tried. The final orders of the court were that Moyano should be detained in a secure mental health facility until such time as his fitness to be tried is restored, or until such other order is made by the court.

Orders