R v Degei - [2020] NSWSC 1267

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Degei [2020] NSWSC 1267
Hearing dates: On the papers
Decision date: 17 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
1. Imaueli Jone Degei is unfit to be tried.
2. He is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in accordance with s 14(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act.
3. The proceedings are adjourned pending any determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
4. Mr Degei is remanded in custody pending any determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – fitness to be tried – Presser principles – agreement of parties and experts – accused unfit to be tried

Legislation Cited:
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 6

Cases Cited:
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41
R v Presser [1958] VR 45

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Imaueli Jone Degei (Accused)
Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
P Johnson (Accused)
F Veltro (Crown)
J Sfinas (Crown)
Solicitors:
Aquila Lawyers
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2018/261828

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mr Imaueli Degei (the accused) is charged with the murder of Ms Kristina Kalnic at Carramar on 25 August 2018. A question has been raised as to his fitness to be tried.
The accused first came under notice of authorities for being mentally ill at the age of 17 when he was hospitalised in May 2017. He was released on a community treatment order in October 2017 but hospitalised again in January 2018. He was released on 8 August 2018 with follow up by the Macarthur Assertive Treatment team.
Ms Kristina Kalnic, lived with her partner of more than 30 years, Mr Zivan Gajic. On 25 August 2018, Mr Gajic was working on his car when he observed the accused walking unsteadily up the road and around their apartment block. At one point, thinking the accused had collapsed, Mr Gajic asked Ms Kalnic to call the police and ambulance.
Ms Kalnic came down from their unit and approached the accused. When she turned away, he punched her in the face. He then stomped on her head three times, killing her.
This was an unspeakably tragic loss of life. My deepest sympathies go to Ms Kalnic's family and friends.
The parties agree that an inquiry should be held as to whether the accused is fit to be tried pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (the Act). The parties agree that the matter may be dealt with on the papers.
I have the benefit of submissions from the Crown and counsel for the accused, as well as reports by forensic psychiatrists, Dr Richard Furst and Professor David Greenberg.

Principles

A person’s fitness to be tried is determined according to the standards in R v Presser [1958] VR 45 at 48:

“He needs, I think, to be able to understand what it is that he is charged with. He needs to be…

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 Degei

Details

AGLC: R v Degei [2020] NSWSC 1267
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1267
Decision Date: 17 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Degei came before the court, where the central issue was the fitness of the accused to be tried. The accused had been charged with serious criminal offences, and the question of his mental health and capacity to participate in his trial was raised. The court was tasked with determining whether the accused was fit to be tried according to the legal standards set out in Australian law.

The primary legal issue was whether the accused met the criteria for being considered unfit to be tried, as defined by the Presser principles. This required the court to consider the opinions of both legal and medical experts, as well as the agreement of the parties involved. The court needed to assess the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence, including psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony, to make a determination on the accused's fitness. The court also had to consider the principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused, ensuring that any decision was fair and balanced.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and expert opinions, finding that there was a consensus among the parties and experts that the accused was unfit to be tried. The accused's mental health condition was such that he was unable to understand the proceedings, participate in his defence, or follow the trial. The court concluded that the accused did not meet the criteria for fitness to be tried as per the established legal standards. The court's decision was based on the agreement of the experts and the parties, confirming that the accused's condition rendered him unfit for trial. The court ordered that the accused be detained under the mental health provisions, rather than proceeding with criminal charges.

Orders