R v Draoui

In R v Draoui, the appellant was charged with numerous offences of dishonesty. The trial judge found the appellant mentally unfit to stand trial and determined that the objective elements of the charges were proven. The judge made a supervision order under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and set a limiting term of 10 years. The appellant appealed against the terms of the supervision order and the length of the limiting term. The primary legal issues were whether the limiting term was manifestly excessive, whether the trial judge was required to consider the appellant's non-contestation of the objective elements, whether the residency condition was unduly onerous, and whether the conditions enabling detention were valid.

The appeal was heard by a court of five judges. The court held that the limiting term was not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge was not required to take into account the appellant's non-contestation of the objective elements. The court found that an acknowledgment of guilt is not to be equated with an admission of objective elements and there is no rule of law or practice requiring credit to be given. The court also held that the residency condition was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the court found that the conditions enabling detention at the discretion of the Director of Forensic Mental Health Services were beyond the scope of Part 8A and struck out those conditions. Consequently, the supervision order was affirmed with those conditions removed.