R v Gryzbowicz - [2014] SADC 192

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v GRYZBOWICZ
[2014] SADC 192
Reasons for the Order of His Honour Judge Soulio
18 November 2014
CRIMINAL LAW
Investigation into mental competence to commit offences – decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offences the defendant was suffering a mental impairment – decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt – defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offences and declared liable to supervision – limiting term of five years, three months and 11 days – supervision order made releasing defendant on licence on conditions decided by the Court and specified in the licence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267, considered.

R v GRYZBOWICZ
[2014] SADC 192

The defendant, Martin Gryzbowicz, was charged with one count of robbery committed on 30 August 2013, contrary to s 137 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (‘CLCA’).
The defendant was also charged with offences committed on 24 August 2013 at a swimming centre at Oaklands Park, namely behaving in a disorderly manner, contrary to s 7(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (‘SOA’); carrying an offensive weapon, namely a chisel, in a public place causing a person to fear for personal safety, contrary to s 21C(7) SOA; and resisting police officers in the execution of their duty contrary to s 6(2) SOA, when they attended to arrest him.
Circumstances of the Principal Offending
On 30 August 2013 the defendant had been involuntarily detained at Glenside Hospital but had escaped. At just after 10.30am that day the defendant was standing outside the roller door of the garage of a house at Dulwich. The victim of the offending entered the garage from inside her house, and entered her car. She opened the roller door remotely. The defendant approached the driver’s side of the vehicle. He demanded that she get out of the car. He opened the driver’s side door, grabbed her by the arm and began pulling her out of the car. The defendant got into the driver’s seat, started the car and reversed out of the garage. The victim of the offending and a neighbour subsequently identified the defendant. The defendant was arrested on the afternoon of 30 August 2013, transferred to James Nash House on the 6 September 2013, and then discharged into custody at Yatala Labour Prison on 30 October 2013.
The Hearing – 8 August 2014
On 14 April 2014 the defendant, through his counsel, entered a plea of not guilty to the principal charge. On 8 August 2014 the additional charges of disorderly behaviour, using an offensive weapon, and resisting police, were read and pleas of not guilty by reason of mental incompetence were entered.
Pursuant to s 269B CLCA, an investigation into a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence, or into whether the elements of the offences have been established, is to be conducted before a jury unless…

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 Gryzbowicz

Details

AGLC: R v Gryzbowicz [2014] SADC 192
Case: [2014] SADC 192
Decision Date: 18 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Gryzbowicz, the defendant was before the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland, facing charges related to sexual offences. The central issue was whether the defendant, Gryzbowicz, was mentally competent at the time of the alleged offences and, if not, what the appropriate legal outcome should be. The appeal stemmed from a decision that found Gryzbowicz guilty but also determined him to be mentally incompetent to be sentenced in the usual manner, leading to his declaration of incompetence and the imposition of a supervision order.

The legal issues before the Court involved the assessment of Gryzbowicz's mental state at the time of the alleged offences and the appropriate legal consequences if it was found that he was indeed mentally incompetent. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Gryzbowicz was not suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the offences, and if not, whether the trial judge correctly applied the law in finding him incompetent and ordering his supervision.

The Court examined the evidence presented regarding Gryzbowicz's mental health and concluded that the prosecution had established the objective elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court also found that Gryzbowicz was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the offences, which rendered him mentally incompetent to commit the offences. Consequently, the Court confirmed the declaration of mental incompetence and the imposition of a supervision order. The Court further imposed a limiting term of five years, three months, and 11 days for the supervision order, and released Gryzbowicz on licence under conditions specified by the Court.

Orders