R -v- DUNNE [2002] WASC 196

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASC 196
Case No:	INS:76/2001	Heard:	29-31 JULY & 6 AUGUST 2002
Coram:	ROBERTS-SMITH J	Delivered:	6/08/02
No of pages:	10	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THE QUEEN PATRICIA MAUREEN DUNNE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Fitness to plead Conflicting expert evidence Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 (WA)
Case References:	R v Dunne (2001) WASC 263 R v Robson [2001] WADC 133 Velevski v The Queen [2002] HCA 4

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : R -v- DUNNE [2002] WASC 196 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH J HEARD : 29-31 JULY & 6 AUGUST 2002 DELIVERED : 6 AUGUST 2002 FILE NO/S : INS 76 of 2001 BETWEEN : THE QUEEN

AND

PATRICIA MAUREEN DUNNE

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Fitness to plead - Conflicting expert evidence - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996 (WA)

Result:

Application granted

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Crown : Mr K P Bates

Accused : Ms G A Archer

Solicitors:

Crown : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Accused : Legal Aid of Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

R v Dunne (2001) WASC 263

Case(s) also cited:

R v Robson [2001] WADC 133
Velevski v The Queen [2002] HCA 4

(Page 3)

1 ROBERTS-SMITH J: This is a continuation of a hearing to determine the fitness of the accused, Patricia Maureen Dunne, to plead to charges on two indictments, both dated 2 April 2002. The first presents her on a charge that on 28 March 1972 at Lynwood she wilfully murdered Anthony Michael Dunne who, I add, was at the time her infant child. The second presents her on two counts, the first being that on or about 6 September 1999 at South Guildford she wilfully murdered Robyn Gaye Swain, and secondly that on 5 December that year at South Guildford she attempted unlawfully to kill Shirley Annette Wake.

2 I have heard evidence over some two and a half days and the matter was listed today for submissions by counsel. When the hearing commenced today Mr Bates who represents the Crown informed me that the evidence having been heard and tested, the Crown was conceding that the accused was not fit to plead. Of course, as counsel recognise and have mentioned, notwithstanding that concession by the Crown it is still a matter for me to determine whether or not the accused is fit to plead to these indictments although the concession made by the Crown must inevitably be an extremely weighty matter in my consideration of that question. Likewise, as Mr Bates has said, it is not just a question of the capacities of the accused or the lack of them, but one which involves a consideration of her capacities applied in a reasonable and commonsense fashion to the circumstances of the particular case,…

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 Dunne

Details

AGLC: R v Dunne [2002] WASC 196
Case: [2002] WASC 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case is a continuation of a hearing to determine the fitness of Patricia Maureen Dunne to plead to charges of wilful murder and attempted murder. The matter was heard over two and a half days, with submissions by counsel concluding on 6 August 2002. The legal issues before the court included determining whether conflicting expert opinions could be resolved on a majority basis and whether the accused's fitness to plead should be assessed in light of the nature of the charges and evidence. The Crown conceded that the accused was not fit to plead, but it remained for the court to make a fresh assessment of her fitness.

The court accepted the evidence of Drs Patchett and Wood that the accused suffers from frontal and temporal lobe dementia, which is irreversible and deteriorating, and that she lacks certain capacities identified in s 9 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Defendants) Act 1996. The court found that the accused's condition had deteriorated markedly since her arrest, and she was unable to understand or exercise the right to challenge jurors, follow the course of a trial, understand the prosecution evidence, or properly defend the charges. The court also found that she would not become mentally fit to stand trial within the next six months.

Having considered the statutory criteria, including the nature of the alleged offences, the accused's mental condition, and the public interest, the court concluded that a custody order was appropriate. The court found the accused not fit to plead and made a custody order in respect of each of the offences on the indictments.

Orders