R v Chute - [2017] ACTSC 246

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Chute
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 246
Hearing Date:	24 July 2017
DecisionDate:	24 July 2017
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	The applicant is unfit to plead within the meaning of s 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and will not become fit to plead within the next 12 months. Listed for a special hearing.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Fitness to plead – investigation into the fitness of the applicant – applicant has mild dementia and cognitive impairment – permanent and progressive condition – applicant not fit to plead – s 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) div 13.2, ss 311, 315A, 315C, 316
Cases Cited:	Grieg v Dziubinski [2013] ACTSC 8 R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372 R v Presser [1958] VR 45 R v Sexton [2000] SASC 276; 77 SASR 405
Parties:	John William Chute (Applicant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr G Walsh (Applicant) Mr T Hickey (Respondent)
Solicitors Greg Walsh & Co (Applicant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCC 178 of 2016

MURRELL CJ:

The applicant has been charged that, while he was a brother at Marist College in Canberra, he indecently assaulted four students and committed buggery on one of those students.

The defence has raised the question of fitness to plead. The prosecution concedes that the applicant is not fit to plead.

The applicant is now 85 years old. He was born in 1932. He worked at Marist College, Canberra, from January 1976 until December 1993. During that period, he performed duties as a secondary school assistant and religious education co-ordinator. At one stage, he was responsible for Years 7 and 8. In about 1994, he retired. He now lives in an aged care facility.

In 2006, the applicant pleaded guilty to sexual assault offences. In 2008, he was sentenced to a total of six years’ imprisonment, of which two years was to be served by way of full-time imprisonment and one year by way of periodic detention. The remaining three years’ imprisonment was suspended. Those sentences have been served.

Principles

A person is presumed to be fit to plead. The presumption is rebutted only if it is established on an investigation under div 13.2 of the Crimes Act1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) that the person is unfit to plead.

Section 311 of the Crimes Act defines when a person is unfit to plead:

311 When a person is unfit to plead
(1) A person is unfit to plead to a charge if the person’s mental processes are disordered or impaired to the extent that the person cannot—
(a) understand the nature of the charge; or
(b) enter a plea to the charge and exercise the right to challenge jurors or the jury; or
(c) understand that the proceeding is an inquiry about whether the person committed the offence; or
(d) follow 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 Chute

Details

AGLC: R v Chute [2017] ACTSC 246
Case: [2017] ACTSC 246
Decision Date: 24 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the defendant, Chute, who was charged with several criminal offences. The defendant suffered from mild dementia and cognitive impairment, raising concerns about his fitness to plead. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant was fit to plead to the charges against him. This required an assessment of the defendant's mental state and an evaluation of whether he had the capacity to understand the charges, participate in his defence, and follow the court proceedings.

The court considered the evidence provided by medical experts, who diagnosed the defendant with mild dementia and cognitive impairment, which was a permanent and progressive condition. The experts concluded that the defendant's condition rendered him unfit to plead, as he lacked the necessary mental capacity to understand the charges and participate effectively in his defence. The court was required to apply the relevant statutory provisions, specifically section 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), to determine the defendant's fitness to plead. The court found that the defendant's condition met the criteria for being unfit to plead, and there was no reasonable prospect that he would become fit to plead within the next 12 months.

The court ordered that the defendant was unfit to plead under section 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and would not become fit to plead within the next 12 months. Consequently, the court scheduled a special hearing to address the appropriate course of action in light of the defendant's incapacity. The court's decision was based on the medical evidence and the statutory requirements for assessing fitness to plead, ensuring that the defendant's rights were protected while also considering the need for a fair trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant is unfit to plead within the meaning of s 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and will not become fit to plead within the next 12 months. Listed for a special hearing.

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.