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 health history of Ms Jackson is disclosed in some detail in the report of Dr Clout. It is unnecessary to repeat that here. The report of Dr Clout indicates that Ms Jackson has current diagnoses of Borderline Personality Disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Attention‑Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. She also presented with long‑standing issues relating to symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder and anxiety. She was undergoing further assessment relating to symptoms of either Schizophrenia or Drug Induced Psychotic Disorder.
The evidence of Dr Clout and of Mr Ross Jackson indicates an intention on Mr Jackson’s part to move with his daughter and grandson to Queensland where Mr Jackson lives and for him to support her to look after her child, obtain stable accommodation, appropriate medical treatment and other support. That course is likely to be substantially beneficial for Ms Jackson because of her negative associations within Canberra and the very difficult relationship that she has with her mother and her sister who both reside in Canberra.
The evidence discloses that Ms Jackson has received substantial ongoing treatment from her general practitioner, a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The intention, which had been partially implemented at the time of the hearing, was to transfer to Queensland‑based practitioners after she moved there with her father. Similarly, the report of Dr Clout indicates that she has received support from a case manager as a result of an intensive family support program and from a drug and alcohol counsellor. Those interventions arose because there was a period during which her son was taken out of her care. The expressed intention was that she receive similar support in Queensland
Having regard to the evidence of the availability of ongoing support from her father and the existing regime of psychological and psychiatric treatment, I do not consider that it is necessary to make an order requiring Ms Jackson to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT. That would be a useful order in circumstances where there was an absence of appropriate mental health interventions or doubt about the person’s motivation or ability to comply with the requirements of those interventions. However, that is not the case here. In my view, to make an order requiring further assessment by the ACAT would only be to impose a further burden upon Ms Jackson which was very unlikely to achieve any improved outcome for her, her father or her child.
It is a case where it is appropriate that the court make no further order.
Order
The order of the Court is:
1. Pursuant to s 323(1)(b) the court makes no further order.
| I certify that the preceding eleven [11] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 23 September 2021 |
0