R v Haines - [2009] SASC 88

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HAINES
[2009] SASC 88
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
3 April 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - NON CUSTODIAL ORDERS
MENTAL HEALTH - CONFINEMENT AND RESTRAINT OF MENTALLY ILL PERSONS AND SIMILAR ORDERS - GENERALLY
On 9 October 2008 defendant found not guilty of offence of attempted murder by reason of mental incompetence - objective elements of offence established beyond reasonable doubt - fixing of supervision order deferred.
Held: supervision order made pursuant to section 269O of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) on basis of three psychiatric reports - defendant released on licence with conditions designed to ensure adequate monitoring and treatment - 10 year limiting term imposed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11, s 269FB(3), s 269T(2)(a), s 269O, s 270A, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267; R v T (1999) 75 SASR 235, considered.

R v HAINES
[2009] SASC 88
Criminal
GRAY J.

Garry Haines was charged on Information with the offence of attempted murder pursuant to sections 11 and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The particulars alleged against him were that between 24 and 25 December 2004 at Woodville Gardens, he attempted to murder his brother, Lynton Haines.
On 9 October 2008, following a trial by Judge alone, I acquitted Mr Haines of the charge of attempted murder on the ground of mental incompetence. I then proceeded to consider the objective elements of the offence and on the same day found that the objective elements had been established beyond reasonable doubt. I recorded those findings pursuant to section 269FB(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. At that time, I deferred my consideration of the making of a supervision order and directed that Mr Haines’ bail continue.
On 9 October 2008 pursuant to section 269T(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act I ordered the preparation of three psychiatric reports to enable consideration as to whether a supervision order should be made and whether Mr Haines should be released on licence.
Dr Strobel reported on 21 November 2008. This report was written against the background of his earlier reports of 21 July and 25 August 2008. Dr Strobel concluded his report with the following observations:
Mr Haines is a single man with a long history of Chronic Paranoid Schizophrenia who lives with his intellectually disabled older brother in supported accommodation.
Symptomatically he suffers of persecutory delusions, which are only partially responsive to treatment with a chronic moderate level of worry and weariness, compounded by features of compulsive behaviours, however he has learned self management skills to contain his anxiety and worry, mainly be [sic] focussing on valued activities like painting, walking, watching movies and a positive mindset focussing on hope and gratitude that is imbedded in his faith.
…
Mr Haines lives in supported accommodation. He has a good rapport with the manager and his medication is supervised. Dr Bisazza reviews him psychiatrically…

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 Haines

Details

AGLC: R v Haines [2009] SASC 88
Case: [2009] SASC 88
Decision Date: 3 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Haines involves the defendant, Haines, who was initially charged with the offence of attempted murder. After a trial, Haines was found not guilty by reason of mental incompetence. This verdict was reached because, while the objective elements of the offence were established beyond reasonable doubt, Haines was deemed mentally incompetent to be held accountable for his actions. As a result, the court deferred the fixing of a supervision order until further assessment could be undertaken.

The legal issues the court needed to address centred on the appropriate sentencing order for Haines, given his not guilty verdict due to mental incompetence. The court had to consider the recommendations from multiple psychiatric reports and decide whether a non-custodial order, such as a supervision order, would be suitable. The court also needed to determine the conditions under which any such order should be implemented to ensure Haines's continued treatment and monitoring.

In making its decision, the court took into account the psychiatric reports and the next of kin report. Both counsel agreed that releasing Haines on licence with specific conditions was the most appropriate course of action. These conditions were designed to ensure Haines would receive adequate monitoring and treatment. The court agreed with this approach and directed the preparation of minutes of order to set out the proposed conditions for the licence. A limiting term of ten years was imposed on the supervision order, after which the court would reassess the situation.

The final orders of the court mandated that Haines be released on licence with conditions designed to ensure he is properly monitored and treated. The specific conditions of the licence were to be approved, with a ten-year limiting term on the supervision order. The court's decision reflects a balanced approach, aiming to manage the risks associated with Haines's mental health while also considering the need for his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

GRAY J

Having regard to the psychiatric evidence and the next of kin report, both counsel agreed that it would be appropriate for Mr Haines to be released on licence with conditions designed to ensure that he is properly monitored and treated. In the circumstances I agree that this is an appropriate course to be followed. I direct that Minutes of Order be prepared setting out the proposed conditions of the licence for the consideration of the Court. Conclusion Having regard to the foregoing, I fix a limiting term of ten years. Mr Haines is to be released on licence with conditions to be approved.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.