R v Jackson (No 2) - [2021] ACTSC 238

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Jackson (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 238
Hearing Date:	10 June 2021
DecisionDate:	23 September 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [11]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Found not guilty by reason of mental impairment – charge of arson – offence not a serious offence for the purposes of Division 13.3 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether court should order that the accused submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT – ongoing support for the accused available – existing regime of psychological and psychiatric treatment – appropriate for the court to make no further order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 323 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 404(1)
Cases Cited:	R v Jackson [2021] ACTSC 120
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Kelly Jackson ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel S Naidu ( Crown) K Ginges ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) McKenna Taylor ( Accused)
File Number:	SCC 97 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Kelly Jackson was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment of a charge of arson contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT): R v Jackson [2021] ACTSC 120. I concluded that the offence was not a “serious offence” for the purposes of Division 13.3 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Therefore, the relevant provision addressing the orders that can be made is s 323 of the Crimes Act.

I explained the alternatives available under that provision in my earlier reasons at [152]. Following my decision, evidence was called by Ms Jackson from her father, Ross Jackson. Further, after the hearing was concluded, a redacted version of a comprehensive family assessment report of Dr Danielle Clout, a psychologist, that had been prepared in relation to proceedings relating to the care of Ms Jackson’s son, was tendered by consent.

The submission made on behalf of the Crown was that the court should make an order under s 323(1)(a) of the Crimes Act requiring Ms Jackson to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) to enable the ACAT to make recommendations as to how she should be dealt with. It would then be necessary to consider the recommendations of the ACAT and determine whether to make a further order pursuant to s 323(3) of the Crimes Act. The Crown did not contend that any order requiring Ms Jackson to be detained in custody would be appropriate but rather that an assessment should be made to inform the court as to whether some other order should be made.

The submission made on behalf of Ms Jackson was that the court should make no further order, a course available under s 323(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.

Both the evidence of Mr Ross Jackson and the report of Dr Clout appear to me to be reliable and I accept that evidence.

The complicated family, drug and alcohol, and mental…

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 Jackson (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Jackson (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 238
Case: [2021] ACTSC 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jackson (No 2), the accused, Kelly Jackson, was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment of a charge of arson. The court had to decide whether to make an order under s 323(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), requiring Jackson to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for assessment. Alternatively, the court could make no further order under s 323(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. The Crown argued for an order for assessment by the ACAT, while Jackson's counsel argued against such an order, citing the availability of ongoing support and treatment.

The court considered the evidence presented, including testimony from Jackson's father and a psychologist's report. The report detailed Jackson's mental health diagnoses and the ongoing support she was receiving, including plans for continued treatment in Queensland. The court concluded that making an order for ACAT assessment was unnecessary because Jackson already had access to a comprehensive regime of psychological and psychiatric treatment and support. The court found that such an order would only impose a further burden on Jackson, without likely benefit to her or her child. The court therefore decided to make no further order.

In summary, the court found that the existing regime of psychological and psychiatric treatment and support was sufficient, and making an order for ACAT assessment would be counterproductive. The order of the court was to make no further order under s 323(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. This decision recognises the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the accused, including their existing support networks and treatment plans, in determining the appropriate course of action.

Orders