R v Kastrappis - [2007] SADC 39

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v KASTRAPPIS
[2007] SADC 39
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Millsteed
18 April 2007
CRIMINAL LAW
Pursuant to s 269F of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act defendant declared liable to supervision on the ground of being mentally incompetent to commit one count of Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass and two counts of Indecent Assault - supervision order made releasing the defendant on licence under s 269O - single limiting term of 3 years fixed pursuant to s 269O.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 269F, s 269O; Criminal Law (Sentencing Act) 1988 (SA) s 18A, referred to.
R v Davey [2006] SASC 177; R v Brown [2006] SADC 82, considered.

R v KASTRAPPIS
[2007] SADC 39
Introduction

The defendant Andrew Kastrappis was charged on information in this Court with one count of Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass and two counts of Indecent Assault. On 20 November 2006 I found that the defendant was not guilty of the charged offences on the ground of mental incompetence and declared that he was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 (the Act). Pursuant to s 269O of the Act I have decided to fix a limiting term of 3 years and to release the defendant on conditional licence. These are my reasons.
The offences
The defendant lives on his own in a block of units at Pooraka. In the early hours of 17 June 2005 he entered the unit of his neighbour Ms Matthews, by forcing open the back door. Ms Matthews was asleep at the time. She awoke as a result of something touching her lips and saw the defendant standing by her bed wearing a coat but no pants. He was holding his penis close to her face. This incident was the subject of the first count of indecent assault.
The defendant then pulled down Ms Matthews’ pyjama pants and said that she had to sleep with him otherwise 200 guys were going to come around to her house and there would be trouble. This conduct was the subject of the second count of indecent assault. Ms Matthews pulled up her pyjama pants and asked him what he was talking about. The defendant then searched the unit for Ms Matthews’ boyfriend. However, he was not there. The defendant left a short time later. The complainant then went to her boyfriend’s home and telephoned the police. The police attended the defendant’s unit later that morning and arrested him.
The proceedings in this Court
On 20 November 2006 I conducted an investigation into the defendant’s mental competence to commit the charged offences pursuant to s 269F of the Act.
Mr Koehn, counsel for the defendant, tendered with the consent of Ms Powell, counsel for the prosecution, psychiatric reports prepared by Dr J Begg dated 28 July 2006 and Dr C Raeside dated 31 October 2006. The history contained in both reports indicated that the incident occurred against the…

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 Kastrappis

Details

AGLC: R v Kastrappis [2007] SADC 39
Case: [2007] SADC 39
Decision Date: 18 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Andrew Kastrappis was charged with one count of Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass and two counts of Indecent Assault. The District Court of South Australia found that the defendant was not guilty of the charged offences on the ground of mental incompetence. The court declared that he was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The court subsequently released the defendant on conditional licence for a period of three years.

The court had to decide whether the defendant was not guilty of the charged offences on the ground of mental incompetence and whether the defendant was liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The court had to determine whether the defendant should be released on conditional licence and what conditions should be imposed. The court had to fix a limiting term for the period of the defendant's release on licence.

The court considered the psychiatric reports and found that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the charged offences. The court was satisfied that the objective elements of each offence had been proved and declared the defendant liable to supervision. The court ordered reports from psychiatrists and a social worker to assist in determining the appropriate disposition of the defendant. The court considered the defendant's personal circumstances and mental condition and found that he required continuing treatment but did not currently represent a danger to the public. The court decided to release the defendant on conditional licence and set a limiting term of three years. The court imposed conditions on the defendant's release to ensure that he continued to receive appropriate treatment and abstained from illicit drug use.

Orders