R v Darren John Southon No. DCCRM-03-527 - [2004] SADC 11

R v Darren John SOUTHON
[2004] SADC 11
Judge Kitchen
Criminal
REASONS OF HIS HONOUR JUDGE KITCHEN
FOR ORDERING RELEASE ON LICENCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 269O OF THE CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT

The defendant was charged with the offence of arson committed on 8 February 2002 at Paralowie in respect of a house the property of the South Australian Housing Trust. The damage to the house amounted to more than $30,000.
On 1 July 2003 the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge and raised a defence of mental incompetence. That issue was tried first, by a judge sitting alone, and on 25 September 2003 counsel for the prosecution and the defence agreed that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence charged; that was recorded accordingly pursuant to Section 269FA(5) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (the Act).
The defendant elected to have the objective elements of the offence tried by a judge sitting alone and on 25 September 2003 it was found that the objective elements of the alleged offence had been established beyond reasonable doubt; that was recorded accordingly and pursuant to Section 269 FB(3) of the Act the defendant was found not guilty of the offence but declared to be liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act.
Where a defendant has been declared to be liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act, the Court may release the defendant unconditionally or make a supervision order either committing him to detention or releasing him on licence on conditions decided by the Court and specified in the licence. If the Court makes a supervision order the court must fix a term (a limiting term):
“equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision (or the aggregate period of imprisonment and supervision) that would, in the court’s opinion, have been appropriate if the defendant had been convicted of the offence of which the objective elements have been established.”
Section 269Q of the Act provides that if a defendant has been declared liable to supervision under Part 8A the Minister must, within 30 days of the declaration prepare and submit to the Court a report, prepared by a psychiatrist or other appropriate expert, containing a diagnosis and prognosis of the mental condition of the defendant and a suggested treatment plan for managing the defendant’s condition. A report by Dr K.P. O’Brien, a consultant psychiatrist, has been provided to the Court for the purposes of Section 269Q.
For the purpose of assisting the Court to determine the disposition of a defendant declared to be liable to supervision, the Crown is to provide to the Court a report setting out, so far as reasonably ascertainable, the views of the next-of-kin of the defendant and the victim of the defendant’s conduct; Section 269R of the Act. The Crown has accordingly provided a report by Mr Paul Sweeney, a senior social worker, containing the views expressed to him by the defendant’s mother and by the victims of the defendant’s offence, Ms…

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 Darren John Southon No. DCCRM-03-527

Details

AGLC: R v Darren John Southon No. DCCRM-03-527 [2004] SADC 11
Case: [2004] SADC 11
Decision Date: 23 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Darren John Southon, the defendant was charged with the offence of arson, committed on 8 February 2002, at Paralowie, involving a house owned by the South Australian Housing Trust. The property damage was estimated at over $30,000. Southon pleaded not guilty, raising a defence of mental incompetence, which was upheld by the court. The court found that Southon was not mentally competent to commit the offence at the time of the incident. Despite this, the court determined that the objective elements of the offence had been established, and Southon was declared liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

The legal issues before the court involved deciding the appropriate disposition for Southon, considering his mental health condition and the seriousness of the offence. The court had to balance Southon's need for psychiatric care and treatment against the need to protect the community. The court also had to determine a suitable limiting term for Southon's release on licence, equivalent to the sentence that would have been imposed if he had been convicted of the offence.

The court found that releasing Southon unconditionally was not appropriate due to his history of paranoid schizophrenia and the potential risk he posed if he did not comply with his treatment. The court accepted the reports of multiple psychiatrists, which recommended ongoing psychiatric care, supervised medication, and a semi-supported living arrangement initially. The court determined that a release on licence, with strict conditions to ensure Southon's compliance with treatment, was the most appropriate course of action. The court fixed a limiting term of 30 months, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for general and personal deterrence.

The court ordered Southon's release on licence pursuant to Section 269O of the Act, subject to the agreed conditions, including mandatory psychiatric care and treatment, supervised medication, and restrictions on alcohol and illicit substances. The court also set a limiting term of 30 months, considering the equivalent sentence that would have been imposed had Southon been convicted of the arson charge.

Orders