R v Jacob Bul [No 2]

[2012] ACTSC 65

R v JACOB BUL [NO 2]
[2012] ACTSC 65 (26 April 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming incapable during trial – special hearing – accused engaged in the conduct required for the offence.
LAW REFORM – absence of provision for ensuring orders following a special hearing can be effected.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 27, 300, 308, 315C, 316, 317, 318, 319
Supreme Court Act1933 (ACT), s 68
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 184, 190
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 309

R v Bul [2012] ACTSC 59
R v Zvonaric (2001) 54 NSWLR 1
R v Fisher (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 100

R v Ardler (2004) 144 A Crim R 552

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

SCC No. 278 of 2011

Judge:             Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              26 April 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          SCC No. 278 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R

v

JACOB BUL

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  26 April 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Mr Bul submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to make a Mental Health Order if so required.

Introduction

1. On 23 April 2012, I found Jacob Bul unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit within 12 months:  R v Bul [2012] ACTSC 59.  As a result I was required, under s 315C of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), to hold a special hearing under s 316 of that Act. Before I gave any directions or fixed the date for the special hearing, I was informed that the Public Advocate of the ACT had been appointed guardian of Mr Bul.

1. In this case, I was satisfied that Mr Bul was incapable of making the election for trial by a single judge without a jury. This was principally because of his lack of understanding about challenging jurors and the jury, as set out in the reports of Dr George and Dr Kasinathan, which were received in the hearing as to his fitness to plead. As the Public Advocate had been appointed to be Mr Bul’s guardian for the purposes of deciding whether the special hearing should be by judge alone it was not necessary for me to act under s 316(3) of the Crimes Act. The Public Advocate has expressed the view required under s 316(2)(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act and, accordingly, the special hearing will be a hearing by judge alone.  I also had a copy of the Guardianship Order.  That may not be necessary in all cases but it was helpful to ensure that the position was clear.

1. After I had delivered my earlier decision, and been notified of the guardian’s opinion, an indictment dated 24 April 2012 was filed containing one count, namely, “that on

   
   

   8 June 2011 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Jacob Bul did steal Australian currency from St George Bank Pty Ltd and at the time…