R v Jake Lewis Andrew [No. 1] - [2018] NSWDC 381

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jake Lewis Andrew [No. 1] [2018] NSWDC 381
Hearing dates: 24 September 2018
Date of orders: 24 September 2018
Decision date: 24 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Jake Lewis Andrew found fit to enter guilty pleas on the charges set out in the proposed indictment.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL MENTAL HEALTH – Fitness hearing - Firearms offences – Intellectually disabled offender – 47 XYY syndrome – Nerf and gel pellet air guns are not legally toys – firearms on bus – multiple firearms – mental impairment – capacity to acknowledge guilt – low range of cognitive ability – impaired ability to follow trial – difference between right and wrong – capacity to tell version of the facts.
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1987
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1
R v Presser (1948) VR 45
R v Presser (1948) VR 45
Texts Cited: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (5th Edition), American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC 2013
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Jake Lewis Andrew (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation: Counsel:
Mr G James QC
Ms G Steedman (Solicitor Advocate for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2017/00306015

Judgment

Brief overview of Facts

At about 9:45am on Tuesday, 10 October 2017 passengers on the bus in Windang Road, Windang saw another passenger with what appeared to be a large gun. That passenger was Jake Lewis Andrew. He was heard to say he had bought it for $300. CCTV from the bus shows the gun was fired twice in to a padded screen. CCTV also showed another pistol style firearm being racked.
Police were alerted. The bus was stopped. Police asked Mr Andrew to get off the bus. He complied. He had a backpack with him. It was taken from him. Mr Andrew told police that if they opened the backpack the guns would be visible.
In the bag was a black .32 calibre Chinese manufactured repeating air pistol. It looked similar to a real Glock pistol except for a red trigger mechanism and a red extended barrel tip. It was loaded with hydrated gel pellets. The second item in the bag was a .35 calibre fully automatic airgun. It looked like a large black machine-gun style firearm. There were no distinctive markings to distinguish it visually from a real firearm. Both items on expert analysis are firearms within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1987. Also in the bag was a bottle with 20 hydrated gel pellets (ammunition) inside.
Mr Andrew told police he got the guns from a friend in Port Macquarie and that he had used them on a camping trip to fire the gel pellets. He said that he had more such guns at home. He said “…they’re fun to play with, you can buy them online.” Mr Andrew did not hold a firearms…

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 Jake Lewis Andrew [No. 1] 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: [2018] NSWDC 381
Decision Date: 24 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jake Lewis Andrew, the defendant was charged with multiple firearms offences. The dispute centred around the defendant's fitness to stand trial and his intellectual disability, specifically his 47 XYY syndrome. The court had to determine whether the defendant was fit to enter pleas of guilty to the charges, given his mental impairment. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant was fit to stand trial and whether he had the capacity to understand the charges, enter pleas, and participate in his defence. The court also had to consider the nature of the alleged offences, which involved carrying multiple firearms on a bus, and whether the defendant understood the difference between right and wrong. Another issue was whether the defendant could acknowledge guilt if found guilty, given his cognitive impairments.

The court found that the defendant, despite his intellectual disability, was fit to enter pleas of guilty to the charges. The court considered the defendant's understanding of the charges, his ability to participate in his defence, and his capacity to acknowledge guilt if found guilty. The court found that the defendant had a low range of cognitive ability and an impaired ability to follow the trial, but he could still understand the difference between right and wrong and could tell his version of the facts. The court also noted that the nerf and gel pellet air guns were not legally toys and that carrying multiple firearms on a bus was a serious offence.

The court ordered that Jake Lewis Andrew be found fit to enter guilty pleas on the charges set out in the proposed indictment. The court also ordered that a psychiatric report be prepared to assist in the sentencing process. The court acknowledged the defendant's intellectual disability but found that it did not prevent him from understanding the charges and participating in his defence. The court also noted that the defendant's intellectual disability was not a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Jake Lewis Andrew found fit to enter guilty pleas on the charges set out in the proposed indictment.

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 Jake Lewis Andrew [No. 1] [2018] NSWDC 381
Hearing dates:	24 September 2018
Date of orders:	24 September 2018
Decision date:	24 September 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Jake Lewis Andrew found fit to enter guilty pleas on the charges set out in the proposed indictment.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL MENTAL HEALTH – Fitness hearing - Firearms offences – Intellectually disabled offender – 47 XYY syndrome – Nerf and gel pellet air guns are not legally toys – firearms on bus – multiple firearms – mental impairment – capacity to acknowledge guilt – low range of cognitive ability – impaired ability to follow trial – difference between right and wrong – capacity to tell version of the facts.
Legislation Cited:	Firearms Act 1987 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited:	Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230 Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1 R v Presser (1948) VR 45 R v Presser (1948) VR 45
Texts Cited:	Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (5th Edition), American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC 2013
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Jake Lewis Andrew (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr G James QC Ms G Steedman (Solicitor Advocate for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2017/00306015