R v Jacob Bul
[2012] ACTSC 59
•23 April 2012
R v JACOB BUL
[2012] ACTSC 59 (23 April 2012)
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused fit to plead or becoming incapable at trial – accused unfit to plead – no issue of principle – turns on its own facts.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), div 13.2, s 316
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 278 of 2011
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 23 April 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 278 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
V
JACOB BUL
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 23 April 2012
Place: Canberra
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
Jacob Bul is unfit to plead and is unlikely to become fit in the next twelve months.
On 17 August 2011, Jacob Bul was committed for trial to this Court on one count of robbery alleged to have been committed on 8 June 2011. On his appearance in this Court on 25 August 2011, an issue arose as to his fitness to plead and under
div 13.2 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), I reserved the question of his fitness to plead and required him to be examined by a psychiatrist or other health professional. In proceeding in that way, I had before me a report of Dr Graeme George dated 5 August 2011 which had undertaken an assessment of Mr Bul’s fitness to plead. I based my view that there was a substantial question as to his fitness on the assessment, in that report, that he was unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit within the next
12 months.
Pursuant to the orders that I made, a report dated 7 September 2011 was prepared by Dr John Kasinathan, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, who examined Mr Bul at the Alexander Maconochie Centre on 1 September 2011. I do not need to go into detail of the contents of the report of Dr Kasinathan, but it was to the same effect as that of Dr George, namely, that Mr Bul was unfit to plead and unfit to be tried (insofar as those are different), and that he will remain unfit for the next 12 months.
The matter came before me today because of a breach of Mr Bul’s bail, as he had been failing to report to ACT Corrective Services as directed (one the of the conditions of his bail). It seemed to me that the matter should proceed promptly, as it appeared that there was no dispute as to whether Mr Bul was fit or unfit to plead. The matter had been listed for a hearing as to fitness to plead on 15 June 2012 for half a day. In the light of the fact that there is no submission from either party that I should not take into account and rely on the two reports of Consultant Psychiatrists that have now been received, there appears no value in delaying further that position.
That is reinforced by the fact that Mr Bul, when challenged by police who were investigating the alleged breach of bail, indicated that he had difficulty in comprehending and abiding by his bail conditions due to the mental illness he suffers. There is also a clearly important value to the administration of justice in dealing with this matter as soon as possible.
Accordingly, I proceeded to deal with the matter. I read the reports. I heard submissions from both parties, both of whom submitted I should rely on the reports I had received and read.
I find that Mr Jacob Bul is unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit within twelve months. That requires, then, there to be a special hearing under s 316 of the Crimes Act as to the offence with which he is to be charged.
I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.
Associate:
Date: 4 May 2012
Counsel for the Crown: Ms S Tasneem
Solicitor for the Crown: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the accused: Ms S Boxall
Solicitor for the accused: Craig Lynch & Associates
Date of hearing: 23 April 2012
Date of judgment: 23 April 2012
0
1