R v Craig Paul Meyboom
[2010] ACTSC 90
•19 August 2010
R v CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM
[2010] ACTSC 90 (19 August 2010)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 353C of 2007
Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 19 August 2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 353C of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM
ORDER
Judge: Higgins CJ
Date: 19 August 2010
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
A verdict of not guilty be entered.
This is a prosecution upon indictment alleging that on 23 November 2006, the accused assaulted Dr Paul Lamberth.
I remind myself of all those things which I must remind myself of, namely that the prosecution bears the onus of satisfying the tribunal of fact, namely me, of the elements of the offence and must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr Meyboom comes to court to face this charge with the presumption that he is innocent and bearing no onus of proof or disproof in respect of the matter.
Nevertheless, the prosecution have, of course, adduced evidence which has gone un-contradicted, so to the extent that evidence has been so given I am entitled to and I do accept it. The question then is; what does it imply?
As I say, there was no issue as to Dr Lamberth’s credit. The only thing that may be said is that it certainly leaves open the hypothesis that Mr Meyboom, being apparently, according to what I am able to glean from that which has been referred to in medical notes, was in hospital as a result, I presume, of a drug overdose or a matter of that kind. Having been treated for that, he was a patient in the Intensive Care Unit.
He was then in the company of police and clearly was being restrained by handcuffs as a result of being in that custody. That is one of the circumstances surrounding it, and I accept that to be the circumstance, at least as a matter certainly of reasonable hypothesis, although it was not expressly addressed.
All that I can glean from the evidence of Dr Lamberth about Mr Meyboom’s situation is that he was, when Dr Lamberth saw him within a space of - I suppose one would have to say an hour or so before the event complained of, that he had - and this is probably about twenty minutes before this - decided that Mr Meyboom’s ventilator should be removed.
I note that he was indeed being intubated, which indicates to me that he was certainly a serious candidate for treatment. He was being sedated. Dr Lamberth had decided earlier that the sedative should be reduced with a view, as I understand it, to removing the intubation and restoring Mr Meyboom, I would gather, to complete consciousness so that he might then ultimately be discharged.
When the tube was removed, it was Dr Lamberth’s view that he appeared, despite earlier signs of unconsciousness, then to be conscious. He appeared to be alert and interactive and he described him as being normal. However, he was verbally abusive towards staff and Dr Lamberth did add, and I think this is probably a fair inference, he was attempting to get free of the handcuffs. What his awareness was of how he could get free of that is not entirely clear because nothing is reported as having been said by Mr Meyboom which would indicate that one way or the other.
Dr Lamberth approached him. It is conceded by Dr Lamberth that he may well have approached him while carrying a syringe, which he was intending to use in order to counteract the morphine which Mr Meyboom had been injected or infused with. I take account of that too, because plainly this is not lightly given and would indicate to me that there is at least a reasonable hypothesis that Mr Meyboom’s sense of awareness, although he was apparently alert, may have been reduced by reason of the opiates which he had been given.
It is not clear whether Dr Lamberth actually gave that antidote. He cannot recall. On the hypothesis that he was approaching with a syringe in his hand, it may be that he never got to do that, by reason of having suffered the kick of which he complains.
It is also significant to note that nothing was said by Mr Meyboom either before or after this event which would indicate what, if anything, his intentions or awareness might have been. I remind myself that the elements of the offence of assault are firstly that there is a deliberate and intentional act applying force to the person of another, or in another type of case, threatening to apply such force, but in this case, the case is that force is being applied. That must be not only an intentional act in the sense of being a voluntary act of striking but an act intended to have that effect, the effect of contacting with Dr Lamberth.
Clearly, it would be open to infer that. On the other hand, given the circumstances in which Mr Meyboom was said to be, there must, I think, be a reasonable doubt about whether he was aware sufficiently of his actions to be criminally responsible for them.
There is also the question which was raised by Mr Gill, which I will deal with. He raised a question as to whether there was a hypothesis that Mr Meyboom, seeing Dr Lamberth approach with a rather large syringe, might have reacted against that to defend himself from being injected with it.
I find that somewhat fanciful, because there is no evidence that Mr Meyboom was aware of the syringe in Dr Lamberth’s possession. I suppose he may have seen it, but what awareness he had of it is also completely uncertain. That perhaps is a subspecies of the doubt which I feel, namely as to what Mr Meyboom’s state of consciousness - not consciousness so much as awareness - was.
Given those circumstances, it seems to me that I must entertain a reasonable doubt about whether there was the intention to strike Dr Lamberth and, by reason of that, record a verdict of acquittal.
I find Mr Meyboom not guilty of that count.
I certify that the preceding (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date: 7 September 2010
Counsel for the Crown: Mr J Lawton
Solicitor for the Crown: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the defendant: Mr S Gill
Solicitor for the defendant: Legal Aid Office (ACT)
Date of hearing: 29 July, 19 August 2010
Date of judgment: 19 August 2010
0
0
0