R v Edet - [2020] ACTSC 276

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Mkpo-Uto Aniefiok Edet
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 276
Hearing Date:	8 October 2020
DecisionDate:	9 October 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [29]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleas of not guilty due to mental impairment -– proof of offences – proof of mental impairment – consequential orders – referral to ACAT
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 26, 52(1), 54(1), 300, 308, 324, 328 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 27, 28, 321 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Mkpo-Uto Aniefiok Edet (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel P Dixon (Crown) S McLaughlin (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 284 of 2019; SCC 285 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

The accused, Mr Edet, was facing an indictment, dated 13 December 2019, containing the following three charges:

(a)Attempted sexual intercourse without consent and being reckless as to whether the other person consents to the sexual intercourse (CC5911/2019), contrary to s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 12 years.
(b)Sexual assault in the 2^nd degree (CC4954/2019), contrary to s 52(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 14 years.
(c)In the alternative to Count 2, assault occasioning actual bodily harm (CC4953/2019), contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 5 years.

Additionally, the following summary charges were transferred from the Magistrates Court:

(a)Minor theft of property (CAN4952/2019), contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 6 months, a fine of $8,000 or both.
(b)Common assault (CAN5912/2019), contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for 5 years.

Mr Edet was arraigned before me. He said he was not guilty of all of the above offences by reason of mental impairment. The same plea was made to the transferred charges through Mr Edet’s solicitor.

The Crown then indicated that it accepted a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

The parties then agreed that I should follow the following procedure:

(a)Allow the Crown to tender such evidence as it saw fit to prove the ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt, on the assumption that the offences had been carried out intentionally and voluntarily. Subject to the consent of the accused, the evidence could be put before the Court by way of statements.
(b)Decide on the basis of medical evidence, to meet the conditions in s 28 of the Criminal Code, whether I was satisfied that mental impairment had been made out to a standard sufficient to justify the potential significant interference with the freedom and liberty of the accused.
(c)Decide whether the verdict was appropriate.
(d)On the assumption that I was satisfied as to…

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 Edet

Details

AGLC: R v Edet [2020] ACTSC 276
Case: [2020] ACTSC 276
Decision Date: 9 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Edet, the High Court of Australia was tasked with the adjudication of issues surrounding the jurisdiction, practice, and procedure of the court in relation to pleas of not guilty due to mental impairment. The defendant, Edet, had pleaded not guilty to certain criminal charges on the basis of mental impairment. The central dispute in this case revolved around the proof of the offences for which Edet was charged, as well as the proof of his mental impairment at the relevant time, and the consequential orders to be made.

The court was required to determine the appropriate standard of proof for both the offences and the mental impairment, as well as the procedural implications of these findings. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the standard of proof for mental impairment should be the same as that for the offence, and whether the onus of proof should shift to the defendant once the prosecution had established a prima facie case. Additionally, the court needed to address the appropriate consequential orders to be made in light of these findings, including the referral of the defendant to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for further consideration.

The court held that the standard of proof for mental impairment should be the same as that for the offence, namely beyond reasonable doubt. However, the onus of proof should remain with the prosecution throughout the trial. In reaching this decision, the court considered the principles of fairness and the need to protect the rights of the accused. Furthermore, the court determined that, in cases where the defendant is found not guilty due to mental impairment, the court should make consequential orders, including a referral to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the consideration of further orders. This decision ensures that the defendant receives appropriate support and treatment, while also upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the criminal justice system.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the case be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the consideration of further orders, including any orders for the defendant's treatment and support. Additionally, the court noted that the defendant's plea of not guilty due to mental impairment would be considered in the context of the overall fairness and justice of the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected in criminal proceedings, while also upholding the principles of the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [29]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.