R v Cohrs - [2022] VSC 334

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0170

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
PAUL ANTHONY COHRS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cohrs
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 334

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Accused charged with murder – Accused unrepresented – Whether accused unfit to stand trial – Question of fitness reserved by court – Unanimous psychiatric evidence that accused likely suffers a delusional disorder of a persecutory type – Unanimous psychiatric evidence that accused unfit to stand trial – Accused unfit to stand trial – Whether accused likely to become fit in next 12 months – Unanimous psychiatric evidence of substantial chance of attaining fitness with treatment by antipsychotic medication – Accused refuses antipsychotic medication – Whether accused should be remanded in an appropriate place for treatment – Accused likely to become fit in next 12 months and remanded in Thomas Embling Hospital – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 ss 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14C, 14D, 14E, 14G, 14H and 47.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Mahady with Mr P Pathmaraj	Office of Public Prosecutions
The Accused	The accused appeared in person

HER HONOUR:

The accused is charged with murder.

There is a real and substantial question as to the accused’s fitness to stand trial.

On 21 June 2021 I reserved the question of the fitness of the accused to stand trial for investigation under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘Act’).[1] I made orders that he undergo an examination by a registered medical practitioner[2] and a second examination by a registered medical practitioner appointed by the Crown, should the Crown seek its own assessment.[3]
[1]Act, s 9(1).
[2]Act, s 10(1)(d).
[3]Act, s 10(1)(e).

On 30 May 2022 I heard the investigation into the fitness of the accused to stand trial.[4] The accused was self-represented during that investigation.
[4]Act, Part 2, Division 2.

For the reasons that follow I find the accused unfit to stand trial.

I further find that the accused is likely to become fit in the next 12 months if he is treated for his delusional disorder.

The Crown case

It is not necessary to here detail extensively the Crown allegations. The following summary suffices.

Background

The accused is the youngest of four siblings. His eldest brother was Raymond Cohrs.

The accused’s father and mother commenced a business named ‘Sunraysia Roofing’ in Mildura and Red Cliffs during the 1970s.

In 1984 the accused’s father took his own life by shooting himself. Thereafter, his mother – the deceased – continued the family business. She did this with the assistance of her children, particularly Raymond.

Over time, the family formed other companies and businesses including ‘Roofing Mildura’, which is wholly owned by Sunraysia Roofing. The various companies have businesses operating in Victoria, South Australia and…

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 Cohrs

Details

AGLC: R v Cohrs [2022] VSC 334
Case: [2022] VSC 334
Decision Date: 17 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Cohrs, was charged with murder and appeared before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to determine whether the defendant was fit to stand trial or if there was evidence to suggest he was mentally unfit to do so. The case hinged on the defendant's mental health status, specifically whether he suffered from a delusional disorder and if he was fit to participate in his defence. The court needed to consider the statutory framework provided by the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, which governs such proceedings.

The primary legal issue was whether the defendant was mentally fit to stand trial and whether there was a substantial chance he could become fit with treatment. The court relied on unanimous psychiatric evidence that the defendant likely suffered from a delusional disorder and was currently unfit to stand trial. The evidence also indicated a substantial chance that the defendant could attain fitness within the next twelve months if treated with antipsychotic medication. However, the defendant refused to take the medication. The court had to balance the statutory provisions concerning the defendant's rights and the public interest in ensuring justice was served.

The Supreme Court found that the defendant was indeed unfit to stand trial due to his delusional disorder. Given the unanimous psychiatric evidence, the court determined that there was a substantial chance that the defendant could become fit for trial within twelve months if treated with antipsychotic medication. Despite the defendant's refusal to take the medication, the court exercised its discretion under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, section 14G, to remand the defendant in Thomas Embling Hospital for treatment. The court believed that with appropriate treatment, the defendant was likely to become fit for trial within the specified timeframe.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be remanded in Thomas Embling Hospital for treatment and observation. The court scheduled a review of the defendant's fitness to stand trial in twelve months, ensuring that the statutory provisions were followed to protect both the defendant's rights and the interests of justice.

Orders