R v Cohrs (No 3) - [2023] VSC 334

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2019 0170

THE KING	Crown
v
PAUL ANTHONY COHRS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 June 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cohrs (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 334

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Accused charged with murder – Accused unrepresented – Accused previously found to be unfit to stand trial – Accused previously found to become likely to become fit within 12 months – Accused remanded at Thomas Embling Hospital for twelve months – Unanimous psychiatric evidence that accused now fit to be tried – Trial to resume in accordance with usual criminal procedures – Trial to commence within three months – Accused remanded in custody – Whether place of custody can remain Thomas Embling Hospital – Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, ss 1, 3, 6, 10, 14F, 14H and 47.

---

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

HER HONOUR:

Background

The accused is charged with murder. A summary of the Crown case is set out in previous decisions of this Court.[1]
[1]See R v Cohrs [2022] VSC 334 (‘Cohrs No 1’) and R v Cohrs (No 2) [2022] VSC 784 (‘Cohrs No 2’).

The accused is and has at all material times been unrepresented.

On 21 June 2021 I reserved the question of the accused’s fitness to stand trial for investigation under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (‘Act’) and ordered that he undergo examination by a registered medical practitioner at the request of the Court, as well as a registered medical practitioner appointed by the Crown, should the Crown seek its own assessment.[2] Both experts agreed that the accused was at the time unfit to stand trial. He was diagnosed as having a delusional disorder, persecutory type. Its effects meant that he was then unable to understand the nature of the trial and the substantial effect of the prosecution evidence. One expert said that the accused was also then unable to give instructions. Both experts also agreed that the accused, who had declined treatment by way of antipsychotic medication in prison, would likely become fit if he were to receive that treatment, potentially compulsorily, at Thomas Embling Hospital (‘TEH’).
[2]Act, s 10(1)(d)–(e).

On 17 June 2022 I found the accused unfit to be tried but likely to become fit within 12 months if treated for his delusional disorder.[3] I ordered that the accused be remanded at TEH for six months, being the period for which facilities were available for him to undergo treatment. At the end of that adjournment period, the accused was examined by a registered medical practitioner at the request of the Court. That assessment noted some improvement in the accused’s condition but again raised a real…

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 (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Cohrs (No 3) [2023] VSC 334
Case: [2023] VSC 334
Decision Date: 16 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant in this case, R v Cohrs, was charged with the murder of another individual. The case was heard in a court of general criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The primary dispute centred around the defendant's fitness to stand trial, given his previous findings of unfitness and the potential for future fitness. The court was tasked with deciding whether the defendant was now fit to be tried and, if so, what the appropriate steps were for resuming the trial process.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the defendant was now fit to stand trial, in light of new psychiatric evidence, and what the appropriate procedural steps were for resuming the trial. The court also had to consider the appropriate place for the defendant's custody, given his previous findings of unfitness and the duration of his remand at Thomas Embling Hospital.

The court found that, based on unanimous psychiatric evidence, the defendant was now fit to be tried. The court determined that the trial should resume in accordance with usual criminal procedures and that the trial should commence within three months. The court held that the defendant could remain in custody at Thomas Embling Hospital, given his previous findings of unfitness and the duration of his remand. The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was fit to stand trial, the trial should resume within three months, and the defendant could remain in custody at Thomas Embling Hospital. The court also ordered that the trial should proceed in accordance with usual criminal procedures.

Orders