R v Hughes - [2006] SADC 11

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application for Stay of Proceedings)
R v HUGHES
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Barrett
15 February 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS
Stay of Proceedings - Claimed memory loss due to concussion shortly before alleged event said to make fair trial impossible.
Held. Suggested memory loss not sufficient to take the extreme step of staying proceedings.
Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; Ross v Tran & Ano (1996) 87 A Crim R; The Queen v Richards (1994) 64 SASR 42, referred to.

R v HUGHES
[2006] SADC 11

The accused applies for a permanent stay of proceedings. He is charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. It is alleged that on the 26^th September 2002, he stabbed a man in the face and the neck. There is a long history of directions hearings in this court throughout 2003, 2004 and 2005. Various psychological and psychiatric reports have been prepared dealing with the accused’s mental state. The accused’s counsel Mr Pertl has drawn particular attention to the latest psychological report dated 25 May 2005 prepared by Mr Mark Reid. That report contains not only details of the neurological assessment carried out by Mr Reid, but also a convenient account of some of witness statements filed by the prosecution.
Essentially Mr Pertl’s argument in support of the application is that the accused is unable to recollect the events of the evening and so is unable adequately to defend himself at this trial. He will not be in a position to instruct his counsel. It is said he will not get a fair trial.
There is no doubt that courts have the power to order a permanent stay if there cannot be a fair trial. Mason CJ in Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23 at p.34 said:
To justify a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, there must be a fundamental defect which goes to the root of the trial ‘of such a nature that nothing that a trial judge can do in the conduct of the trial can relieve against its unfair consequences’; Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 111 per Wilson J.
His Honour held that the factors which might give rise to a permanent stay “cannot be precisely defined in way that will cover every case”[1].
[1] ibid p33
In this case the psychologist Mr Reid set out in his report that the accused asserted that at the time of the incident he was affected by alcohol and marijuana and was suffering the after effects of a blow to the head inflicted by his father using an iron bar shortly beforehand. Mr Reid is unable to ascertain the precise effects of the head injury which was caused by the blow. His report is helpfully summarised in two paragraphs. On page 8 of the report, he said:
It is…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [2006] SADC 11
Case: [2006] SADC 11
Decision Date: 15 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hughes involved the respondent, Hughes, who sought a stay of criminal proceedings against him on the basis of mental incapacity. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Gotterson. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's mental state was such that he was unable to participate in his defence, thereby warranting a stay of proceedings under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2016.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether Hughes' mental condition was so impaired that he was unable to effectively participate in the proceedings. This required an examination of the respondent's mental health reports and an assessment of his ability to understand the charges, instruct counsel, and participate in his defence. The court also considered whether there were any alternative measures that could be taken to ensure a fair trial while accommodating the respondent's mental health needs.

Justice Gotterson concluded that Hughes' mental health issues did not reach the threshold required to warrant a stay of proceedings. The evidence showed that while Hughes suffered from mental health problems, he was capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him and could participate in the trial with the assistance of a support person. The court found that the appropriate course was to proceed with the trial under supervision, with provisions for support and adjustments to accommodate Hughes' needs. The stay application was dismissed, and the trial was allowed to continue.

The court ordered that the trial proceed with specific measures in place to assist Hughes, including the presence of a support person and any other reasonable adjustments to the trial process as required to accommodate his mental health needs. The court also directed that Hughes be provided with a copy of the judgement and any relevant documents in a format accessible to him.

Orders