R v HEAL - [2013] SADC 87

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HEAL
[2013] SADC 87
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Soulio
4 July 2013
CRIMINAL LAW
Investigation into fitness to stand trial on charges of indecent assault, failure to comply with bail agreements and damage property - decided that defendant unfit to stand trial - decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt - supervision order made.
Defendant released on licence with a limiting term of two years, 10 months, and one week, after taking into account time in custody.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267, considered.

R v HEAL
[2013] SADC 87

The defendant was charged with one count of indecent assault, contrary to s 56 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (‘CLCA’), committed on 30 August 2011 at Campbelltown.
He had originally been charged with rape on the basis that it was alleged that he had inserted his fingers into the vagina of the adult complainant. The charge of indecent assault was laid in the alternative, and the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the DPP’) has proceeded on that charge on the basis that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that there was penetration.
The defendant had been living with the complainant and her partner at the time of the offending. At about 7.30am on the morning of the offending, after the complainant’s partner had left the house, the defendant went into the complainant’s bedroom, where the complainant was in bed, and put his hand under the bed covers and inside her underwear. She pushed him away and he then left the room.
During the course of proceedings in this Court I was informed that the defendant was also charged with a series of offences being dealt with in the Magistrates Court. I called for those matters, which I list chronologically as follows:
·20 February 2011 – failure to comply with bail agreement by breaching non-contact condition.
·September 2011 – failure to comply with condition of bail by breaching curfew condition.
·17 September 2011 – failure to comply with bail agreement by breaching curfew condition.
·13 October 2011 - failure to comply with bail agreement by breaching curfew condition.
·15 October 2011 - failure to comply with bail agreement by breaching curfew condition.
·13 February 2012 - failure to comply with bail agreement by breaching curfew condition.
·15 March 2012 – damaging property.
The circumstances of the bail breaches are generally self-explanatory. The charge of damaging property gives some cause for concern. The defendant attended at the victim’s shop on Woodville Road at Woodville inquiring as to whether she wished her car to be cleaned. She declined. About an hour later she heard a noise at the back of the shop, and upon investigating saw the accused standing outside ripping the screen from the rear door. The victim confronted the defendant and advised him that she would call the police. Police attended, and later…

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 HEAL

Details

AGLC: R v Heal [2013] SADC 87
Case: [2013] SADC 87
Decision Date: 4 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the District Court of South Australia, the defendant was charged with indecent assault and multiple breaches of bail conditions, as well as damaging property. The court had to decide if the defendant was mentally fit to stand trial and, if so, whether the prosecution had proven the objective elements of the charges. The court also needed to determine the appropriate conditions for a supervision order if the defendant was found unfit to stand trial or if the objective elements were proven.

The court found that the defendant was mentally unfit to stand trial based on expert reports that diagnosed the defendant with an intellectual disability and a personality disorder. Despite this, the court proceeded to assess the objective elements of the charges and found them proven beyond reasonable doubt. Given the defendant's mental condition, the court determined that detention was not appropriate, and instead, ordered a supervision release on licence with strict conditions to ensure community safety and the defendant's mental health management. These conditions included regular psychiatric reviews, adherence to medication, and restrictions on contact with the victim. The court set a limiting term of two years, ten months, and one week, taking into account the time already spent in custody.

The court's final orders included releasing the defendant on licence with specific conditions to monitor and manage his mental health and behaviour, and to prevent further offending. The defendant must comply with directions from his supervising officers, mental health professionals, and a nominated carer. Additionally, he is prohibited from contacting the victim of the indecent assault. These measures aim to balance the defendant's rights with the need to protect the community and ensure his mental health is managed effectively.

Orders