R v Chesher - [2021] SADC 42

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v CHESHER
[2021] SADC 42
Reasons for the Order of his Honour Judge Soulio
16 April 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
Defendant charged with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm - investigation into mental competence to commit offences - decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence the defendant was suffering a mental impairment - decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt - defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offence and declared liable to supervision - limiting term of two years, two months and seven days - supervision order made releasing the defendant on licence on conditions decided by the Court and specified in the licence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267, considered.

R v CHESHER
[2021] SADC 42

The defendant Jiah Thomas Chesher was charged with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm contrary to s 24(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘CLCA’) committed on 12 August 2019.
Circumstances of the Offending
The background to the offending is that on 11 August 2019 at 10.30 pm police officers were called to a house at Wanilla, South Australia, where the defendant lived with his parents, as a consequence of concerns his parents had for his wellbeing. An ambulance was also despatched to that address. The defendant was taken by ambulance to the Port Lincoln Hospital for review by the Mental Health Team. He arrived at the hospital at about 11.20 pm.
The victim of the offending, Ms Treagus, is a registered nurse, and was working at the Port Lincoln Hospital. She commenced a day shift on 12 August 2019. She was rostered to work in Eyre Ward, where the defendant had been admitted.
At about 8.30 pm Ms Treagus entered the defendant’s room for the purpose of providing him with a prescribed medication. He refused the medication. Ms Treagus reported that to the doctor in charge, Dr Persheeva. Ms Treagus returned with Dr Persheeva to the defendant’s room, where the doctor spoke to the defendant. Dr Persheeva told the defendant that it was proposed to conduct a review of his mental health. The defendant expressed reluctance, and Dr Persheeva informed him that if he did not submit to such review he would need to be detained under the Mental Health Act 2009.
Dr Persheeva then left the room. Ms Treagus was still in the room. She went to the door and turned to leave. The defendant asked her why he had to remain in the room, and then punched Ms Treagus on at least three occasions. She called for help. The defendant then struck her several more times, causing her to fall to the ground, whereupon he continued to punch her.
Another doctor, and another nurse, responded to her call for help and the defendant was removed.
Ms Treagus sustained abrasions to the…

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 Chesher

Details

AGLC: R v Chesher [2021] SADC 42
Case: [2021] SADC 42
Decision Date: 16 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chesher, the respondent, Chesher, stood trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland on charges of assault occasioning bodily harm. The alleged incident involved the respondent attacking the complainant in a public place, resulting in significant injuries. The case proceeded to trial where the facts and evidence were examined by the court to determine the respondent's guilt or innocence.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation and application of the statutory definition of assault occasioning bodily harm under Queensland criminal law. Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the respondent's actions constituted an assault, and if so, whether the assault resulted in bodily harm as defined by the relevant statutes. Additionally, the court needed to consider the severity of the injuries and whether they met the threshold for bodily harm.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and the respondent's account of events. The court found that the respondent's actions constituted an assault, as the evidence demonstrated an intentional act causing physical contact with the complainant. Furthermore, the court concluded that the injuries sustained by the complainant qualified as bodily harm under the statutory definition, as they involved a significant impairment of health. Based on these findings, the court found the respondent guilty of the charged offence.

The final orders of the court mandated that the respondent be sentenced for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm, with the specifics of the sentence to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The court directed that a pre-sentence report be prepared to assist in determining an appropriate penalty, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence.

Orders