R v Chute

Case [2019] ACTSC 197

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Chute

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 197

Hearing Date:

25 July 2019

DecisionDate:

30 July 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [27]-[29]

Catchwords:

EVIDENCE – FITNESS TO PLEAD – Accused found unfit to plead in earlier proceedings – accused remains unfit to plead – accused is unlikely to become fit to plead within 12 months – ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal directed to appoint a guardian – guardian empowered to make an election under s 316(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)

EVIDENCE – SUBPOENAS – Disclosure of protected confidences – whether there is a legitimate forensic purpose under s 79F Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) – when evidence ‘would materially assist the applicant’s case’ under s 79F(2)(b)

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 92(2)K, 92E(2), 314, 316(2), 316(3)

Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 79A, 79F, 79G, Div 4.4.3

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 139

Cases Cited:

In the matter of an application by McInnes [2009] ACTSC 29

R v Basham [2009] ACTSC 142
R v Chute [2017] ACTSC 246
R v Chute (No 5) [2019] ACTSC 52
R v NS [2016] ACTSC 346; 12 ACTLR 64

R v O’Rafferty [2016] ACTSC 141

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

John William Chute (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

P Dixon (Crown)

G Walsh (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Greg Walsh & Co (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 93 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. John William Chute faces seven counts of committing an act of indecency on a young person contrary to s 92K(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and two counts of sexual intercourse with a young person contrary to s 92E(2) of that Act. The offences are alleged to have occurred between 30 June 1988 and 6 December 1990 at a time when Mr Chute was a teacher at the Marist College, Canberra and the complainant who I will refer to as SQ was a student there.

  1. Mr Chute was committed for trial by the Magistrates Court on 1 May 2019. The proceedings were first before me on 25 July 2019.

Fitness to plead

  1. Counsel for Mr Chute raised the issue of his fitness to plead. In earlier proceedings against him in this court he has been found to be unfit to plead: R v Chute [2017] ACTSC 246 (Murrell CJ). Being satisfied that there was a real and substantial question about his fitness to plead, I reserved the question for investigation: Crimes Act s 314. I admitted evidence relevant to that issue including material relied upon for the purposes of the previous finding, as well as expert and lay evidence arising since the earlier determination. Both parties contended that Mr Chute was unfit to plead.

  1. I adopt the statement of principles set out by Murrell CJ in her earlier decision at [5]-[10]. The evidence that was before the Chief Justice was also before me and I adopt her  Honour’s summary of the evidence and reasons for concluding…

Continue reading R v Chute

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Chute [2019] ACTSC 197
Case
[2019] ACTSC 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chute involved the appellant, who had previously been found unfit to plead in earlier proceedings. The matter was before the court to address the ongoing fitness of the appellant to participate in criminal proceedings. The appellant remained unfit to plead and it was assessed that it was unlikely that they would become fit to plead within the next 12 months. Consequently, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action in relation to the appellant's continued detention and the potential appointment of a guardian. The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of provisions within the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT).

The court examined the statutory framework and determined that, under section 316(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal was mandated to appoint a guardian for the appellant. The court further elaborated that the guardian, once appointed, would have the authority to make an election under the same section. Additionally, the court addressed the disclosure of protected confidences, scrutinising whether there was a legitimate forensic purpose under section 79F of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT). The court considered the criteria for disclosure, specifically whether the evidence would materially assist the appellant's case under section 79F(2)(b).

In light of the findings, the court directed the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to appoint a guardian for the appellant. The court emphasised that the guardian would have the necessary powers to make an election regarding the appellant's continued detention and the handling of their criminal case. The court also clarified the conditions under which protected confidences could be disclosed, aligning with the statutory criteria. The final orders included the immediate appointment of a guardian for the appellant and the empowerment of the guardian to make an election under the specified section of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The court provided detailed directions for the disclosure of evidence, ensuring that it adhered to the legitimate forensic purposes outlined in the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT).

Orders

Orders of the court

See [27]-[29]

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.