R v Chattaway - [2016] SASC 195

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CHATTAWAY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SASC 195
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Bampton
16 December 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
The defendant was charged with the attempted murder of his parents – he pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence – investigation into the defendant’s mental competence dealt with by way of a Judge sitting alone – Court determined to proceed first with the question of the defendant’s mental competence to commit each of the offences in accordance with s 269FA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA) – Court accepted psychiatric evidence – finding recorded that defendant mentally incompetent to commit each of the offences of attempted murder pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) – finding recorded that the objective elements of each of the offences of attempted murder established beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 269FB(2) – defendant found not guilty of each of the offences of attempted murder pursuant to s 269FB(3) and declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA – supervision order committing the defendant to detention made pursuant to s 269O(1)(b)(i) – limiting term fixed pursuant to s 269O(2).
HELD:
1. The defendant was suffering a psychotic episode as a result of an acute psychotic relapse of schizophrenia at the time of the conduct.
2. Finding recorded pursuant to s 269FA(5)(b) that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit each of the offences of attempted murder.
3. Finding recorded pursuant to s 269FB(2) that the objective elements of each of the offences established beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Pursuant to s 269FB(3) defendant found not guilty of each of the offences of attempted murder and declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA.
5. The defendant committed to detention pursuant to s 269O(1)(b)(i).
6. Limiting term of 10 years fixed pursuant to s 269O(2).
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267; R v T (1999) 75 SASR 235; R v Bober (No 3) (2010) 107 SASR 165, considered.

R v CHATTAWAY
[2016] SASC 195
Criminal

BAMPTON J: Nicholas Chattaway was charged with the attempted murder of his parents, Catherine and Robert Chattaway, at Torrens Park on 29 October 2014. Mr Chattaway pleaded not guilty raising the defence of mental incompetence.
Mr Chattaway is presumed to be mentally competent to commit an offence unless he is found on an investigation under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (“the CLCA”) to have been mentally incompetent to commit the offences.
Part 8A investigation
Mr Chattaway elected to have the investigation under Part 8A of the CLCA dealt with by a Judge sitting alone pursuant to s 269B(1) of the CLCA.
On 27 November 2015, the prosecution…

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 Chattaway

Details

AGLC: R v Chattaway [2016] SASC 195
Case: [2016] SASC 195
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Chattaway, the defendant faced charges for the attempted murder of his parents. He contested the charges, asserting that he was not guilty by reason of mental incompetence. The matter was investigated by a single judge under the provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant was mentally competent to commit the alleged offences and, if so, whether he was guilty of the attempted murders.

The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the defendant met the criteria for mental incompetence under s 269FA of the CLCA and, if not, whether the prosecution had established the elements of the attempted murder beyond reasonable doubt. The court also needed to consider the appropriate legal outcome under the CLCA if the defendant was found to be incompetent.

In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offences of attempted murder, as required under s 269FA(5)(b) of the CLCA. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant was not guilty of the attempted murders under s 269FB(3) of the Act. However, because the court determined that the objective elements of the attempted murder offences were met, the defendant was declared liable to supervision under Division 4 of Part 8A of the CLCA. A supervision order was made under s 269O(1)(b)(i) of the Act, with a limiting term set out under s 269O(2). This order mandated the defendant's detention.

The final orders of the court included the declaration that the defendant was not guilty of the attempted murders, the declaration of his liability to supervision, and the making of a supervision order committing him to detention with a specified limiting term.

Orders