R v Hamlyn - [2012] SADC 158

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HAMLYN
[2012] SADC 158
Reasons for the Order of His Honour Judge Soulio
22 November 2012
CRIMINAL LAW
Investigation into mental competence to commit an offence - 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 seven years - 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; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s18A, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267, considered.

R v HAMLYN
[2012] SADC 158

The defendant Brenton John Hamlyn was charged with one count of endangering life, contrary to s 29(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (the Act), and one count of arson, contrary to s 85(1) of the Act, committed on 26 May 2011.
Circumstances of the Offending
Just before midday on 26 May 2011 the two residents of a house at Aberfoyle Park, owned by Housing SA, were in the main bedroom of that house when they heard a loud noise and discovered that an object had been thrown through the window. The male resident ran outside and observed the defendant getting into a motor vehicle and driving away. The male resident returned to the house and saw that a fire had started, and noticed a petrol can inside the house. He tried to fight the fire and was partially successful. The fire was ultimately extinguished by fire service officers. The male resident suffered cuts to his left hand and left foot while attempting to extinguish the fire. The fire caused damage with an estimated repair cost of $15,000.
The Hearing
On 12 December 2011 in this Court Mr Hamlyn pleaded not guilty to the charges. Psychiatric reports were ordered, pursuant to Part 8A of the Act, and the matter proceeded to a hearing on 27 July 2012.
Pursuant to s 269B of the Act an investigation into a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence, or into whether elements of the offence have been established, is to be conducted before a jury unless the defendant has elected to have the matter dealt with by a judge sitting alone. Here, the election was made by counsel on behalf of the defendant pursuant to s 269W of the Act.
Mental Competence
I decided to first try the question of the defendant’s mental competence to commit the offence. I proceeded pursuant to s 269F of the Act and received a report dated 22 October 2011 from Dr Raeside, a forensic psychiatrist, who concluded that:
I believe it is likely that Mr Hamlyn was experiencing a mental illness at the time of the alleged offending, namely Paranoid Schizophrenia. I could find no evidence that…

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 Hamlyn

Details

AGLC: R v Hamlyn [2012] SADC 158
Case: [2012] SADC 158
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Brenton John Hamlyn, was charged with endangering life and arson, committed on 26 May 2011. The defendant threw an object through the window of a house, causing a fire. The defendant was subsequently charged with the offences, and pleaded not guilty. The case proceeded to a hearing on 27 July 2012. The court was required to decide two issues: whether the defendant was mentally competent to commit the offences at the time of the offending, and whether the objective elements of the offences were established beyond reasonable doubt.

In relation to the first issue, the court found that the defendant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia at the time of the offending. The court accepted the opinions of Dr Raeside and Dr Tomasic that the defendant was mentally incompetent at the time of the offending, and declared the defendant to be mentally incompetent to commit the offences. In relation to the second issue, the court found that the objective elements of the offences were established beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the defendant not guilty of the offences but declared him to be liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The court determined that the appropriate disposition was for the defendant to be released on licence on certain conditions.

The final orders were that the defendant be subject to a supervision order, and be released on licence on certain conditions, including that the defendant be under the care and direction of a psychiatrist, comply with medical and psychiatric treatment and medication, submit to breath and or urine testing, and not consume alcohol. The defendant was also prohibited from contacting the victims of his offending.

Orders