R v Hume (a pseudonym) (no. 2) - [2022] NSWDC 434

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hume (a pseudonym) (no. 2) [2022] NSWDC 434
Hearing dates: 16 May 2022
Date of orders: 18 May 2022
Decision date: 18 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
Guilty of counts 1 and 2, not guilty of count 3

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – accused unfit to stand trial – special hearing – sexual intercourse with child under 10

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995.
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Hume (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Bailey (Crown)
Ms C Mendes (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/00350425
Publication restriction: Non-publication order in relation to the name of the accused and the complainants.

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 15 April 2021, pursuant to the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act), I found Mr Hume unfit to stand trial and that he would not become fit for trial within 12 months: R v Hume (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 123.
Having found the accused unfit to be tried and satisfied that he will not during the next twelve months become fit, he is to be dealt with under Division 3 of the Act.
Pursuant to s 53(2), the Court has received advice from the DPP that further proceedings will be taken in respect of the offences. As a result of that advice, a special hearing was conducted on Monday 16 May 2022. The Crown filed a three-count indictment and called for trial the accused.
The hearing was conducted as nearly as possible as if it were a trial of criminal proceedings: s 56(1).
The accused was represented by Ms Mendes, public defender, an Australian legal practitioner: s 56(2).
The accused was taken to have entered a plea of not guilty to the offences charged without formal arraignment: s 56(5).
The accused is a resident in an aged care facility. There were difficulties in having him appear by audio-visual link from that facility. Ms Mendes, without objection from the Crown, sought to have him not appear at the special hearing. I acceded to this request; it was appropriate in the circumstances: s 56(8).
Without objection, the Crown tendered 14 documents, namely:

Indictment

transcript of SR, 5 November 2019

transcript of SR, 13 March 2020

statement of EH, 21 November 2019

statement of JR, 4 November 2019.

Statement of Senior Constable Jed Anderson, 7 November 2019

surveillance device warrant and transcript, 7 November 2019.

ERISP transcript, 7 November 2019.

Custody management record, 7 November 2019.

statement of officer-in-charge, Kendrew, 19 November 2019.

photograph 10 round/TV area, 12 November 2019.

photograph 11 accused’s recliner chair, 12 November 2019.

Fitness determination (R v Hume, pseudonym) [2021] NSWDC 123, 15 April 2021.

Pt 9/CMR, 7 November 2019.

The indictment alleged three counts of sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 10 years,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hume (a pseudonym) (no. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWDC 434
Decision Date: 18 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hume involved a criminal trial where the accused, identified under the pseudonym Hume, faced charges related to sexual offences involving a child under the age of ten. The trial took place in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia, where the accused was alleged to have engaged in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of ten, as well as additional related charges. The court was required to determine the fitness of the accused to stand trial, which necessitated a special hearing before proceeding with the main trial. The central legal issues revolved around the accused's mental capacity and fitness to understand the proceedings and participate in his defence. The court had to assess whether Hume was capable of comprehending the nature of the charges, the potential consequences, and the ability to instruct legal counsel effectively.

The court conducted a thorough examination of Hume's mental state, reviewing expert psychiatric evidence and other relevant material. The judges concluded that Hume was unfit to stand trial due to a diagnosed mental disorder that significantly impaired his ability to participate in the trial process. Consequently, the court declared Hume unfit to stand trial on the charges, and special measures were put in place to ensure his treatment and care. The court also found Hume guilty of two of the charges, while acquitting him of the third count due to insufficient evidence. The findings and verdict were based on a comprehensive analysis of the evidence presented and the expert opinions provided regarding Hume's mental health and fitness to stand trial.

The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that individuals with mental health issues receive appropriate care and treatment within the justice system. By finding Hume unfit to stand trial, the court emphasised the need for a structured approach to managing such cases, ensuring that the rights and well-being of the accused are protected. The court's ruling on the specific charges highlighted the rigorous standards required for criminal convictions, particularly in cases involving serious allegations of sexual offences against children. The final orders of the court were that Hume was guilty of counts 1 and 2, while being acquitted of count 3. The court also mandated that Hume receive necessary medical and psychological treatment as part of his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Guilty of counts 1 and 2, not guilty of count 3

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hume (a pseudonym) (no. 2) [2022] NSWDC 434
Hearing dates:	16 May 2022
Date of orders:	18 May 2022
Decision date:	18 May 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	Guilty of counts 1 and 2, not guilty of count 3
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – accused unfit to stand trial – special hearing – sexual intercourse with child under 10
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Evidence Act 1995. Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Hume (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Bailey (Crown) Ms C Mendes (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (Accused)
File Number(s):	2019/00350425
Publication restriction:	Non-publication order in relation to the name of the accused and the complainants.