R v Gray - [2008] SADC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GRAY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2008] SADC 127
Ruling of His Honour Judge Rice
2 October 2008
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ACCUSED UNFIT TO PLEAD OR INCAPABLE DURING TRIAL
Accused charged with two offences of Endangering Life - mentally unfit to stand trial - consideration of objective elements involved possible defence of self-defence (and therefore lawful excuse) - whether part of objective elements or a subjective matter.
Held: s 269MB(3) precludes a consideration of self-defence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 29(1), Part 8A, 269A, 269MA(5), and 269MB, referred to.
R v Parenzee [2008] SASC 245; R v Gillard [2008] SASC 38; Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 1997) 70 SASR 251, applied.

R v GRAY
[2008] SADC 127
The charges

The accused is charged with two counts of Endangering Life pursuant to s 29(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The particulars of both counts are as follows:
Michael John Gray on the 18th day of April 2007 at Campbelltown, without lawful excuse, drove a motor vehicle at Michael Payne, and intending to endanger Michael Payne’s life or being recklessly indifferent as to whether Michael Payne’s life was endangered.
Although each charge is in the same terms, they relate to two separate and distinct actions by Mr Gray in the driving of his car at the victim. The details are referred to below.
Counsel for the accused, Ms Waite, has submitted that the Court record a finding that the accused is mentally unfit to stand trial and liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
Both counsel concede that the accused was mentally unfit to stand trial. There is no dispute as to the objective elements of the alleged offences save and except an issue of self-defence to which I will return.
The accused elected for a trial of the objective elements of the alleged offences by Judge alone.
Background of the charges
The factual material for this matter has largely been agreed and the trial proceeded on evidence provided in the declarations of various witnesses, including a statement from the victim.
The main declarations relied upon are:
1.Michael Payne dated 24 August 2007 – the victim.
2.David Game dated 15 August 2007 – prepared a medical report relating to the victim compiled from the Royal Adelaide Hospital case notes.
3.Kevin Dean Styles dated 12 August 2007 – witness to the events the subject of these charges.
4.Trevor Sharples dated 18 April 2007 – Constable of Police who attended the Norwood Police Station on the morning of Wednesday 18 April 2007 and spoke with Mr Gray.
5.Rowen Male dated 27 August 2007 – present with Constable Sharples at the Norwood Police Station when Mr Gray was spoken to and searched, a large kitchen knife being found in his jeans pocket.
6.Marcus Wells Cooper dated 27 August 2007 – attended at the scene.
7.Detective Sergeant…

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 Gray

Details

AGLC: R v Gray [2008] SADC 127
Case: [2008] SADC 127
Decision Date: 2 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gray involved a defendant who was charged with two offences of endangering life. The defendant, however, was found to be mentally unfit to stand trial. The matter was considered by the court with a particular focus on the objective elements of the charges, which included the potential defence of self-defence. The central issue before the court was whether the consideration of self-defence was part of the objective elements of the offence or if it remained a subjective matter to be decided by the accused.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, specifically section 269MB(3), to determine the nature of the consideration of self-defence. The court found that the provision precluded the consideration of self-defence in cases where the accused is found unfit to stand trial. This interpretation limited the scope of what could be considered when assessing the objective elements of the charges against the defendant.

Consequently, the court ruled that self-defence could not be considered as part of the objective elements for the purpose of determining whether the defendant was fit to stand trial. This decision was grounded in the statutory language and the legislative intent to exclude subjective considerations in such cases. The outcome was that the defendant's unfitness to stand trial precluded any consideration of self-defence as part of the objective elements of the charges.

In summary, the court held that section 269MB(3) of the relevant statute precluded the consideration of self-defence in determining the objective elements of the charges against the defendant. This decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation in criminal law proceedings involving the fitness of the accused to stand trial.

Orders