R v Kerrie-Lee Sonia Richardson - [2013] ACTSC 158

R v KERRIE-LEE SONIA RICHARDSON
[2013] ACTSC 158 (31 July 2013)

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

R v Mulcahy (2010) ACTSC 98

R v Hill (2012) 266 FLR 1

R v Butler (2012) 266 FLR 168

R v O’Brien (2013) ACTSC 42

R v RC (2013) ACTSC 139

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 40 of 2013

Judge: Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 31 July 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 40 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R

v

KERRIE-LEE SONIA RICHARDSON

ORDER

Judge:  Nield AJ
Date:  31 July 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A special verdict be entered that the accused is not guilty of each of the charges against her because of mental impairment.

The accused submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable it to make a mental health order.

This judgment be referred to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal for its information.

The accused’s bail continue pending her attendance before ACAT pursuant to this order.

The accused is Ms Kerrie-Lee Sonia Richardson. She was born on XX July 1970. She committed the alleged offences, three in all, all being a stabbing of the complainant, Mr Philip Morton, her carer, with a knife on 28 October 2012. She was then aged 42 years three months. She is now aged 43 years.

The accused suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. She was first diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia during 2000 after having been admitted into the Adult Mental Health Unit of the Canberra Hospital following a psychotic episode. She has since been admitted into the Adult Mental Health Unit of the Canberra Hospital on a number of occasions following psychotic episodes. Also, she has been made the subject of a number of psychiatric treatment orders under which she received treatment by medication for her mental illness. However, about 12 months before 28 October 2012, she ceased to attend her general medical practitioner for the medication prescribed for her.

Also, the accused has abused prohibited drugs over a long period. She smokes cannabis regularly and she uses methamphetamine, known as ice, less regularly than she smokes cannabis. Needless to say, her abuse of prohibited drugs has exacerbated her mental illness.

Some years ago, perhaps three or three and a half years ago, the complainant and the accused became friends. Then, about two years ago, he became her carer. Then, about 12 months ago, they started a sexual relationship together.

At some time before about 3 am on 28 October 2012, after both of them had smoked cannabis, and she had used methamphetamine, an argument started between the complainant and the accused. The argument may have arisen partly from the accused’s belief that the complainant was involved in a sexual relationship with a current girlfriend of her former boyfriend and this belief may have arisen from her seeing some abbreviated names and some telephone numbers on 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Kerrie-Lee Sonia Richardson 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: [2013] ACTSC 158
Decision Date: 31 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kerrie-Lee Sonia Richardson, the defendant faced charges of stealing and possessing property, but contested these charges on the basis of mental impairment. The trial took place in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The defendant, represented by counsel, argued that she did not have the requisite mental capacity to form the necessary intent to commit the alleged offences. This defence necessitated a thorough examination of the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offences.

The court had to determine whether the defendant was suffering from a mental impairment that negated her ability to form the intent required for the offences of stealing and possessing property. This involved assessing whether the defendant had a mental illness, intellectual disability, or acquired brain injury that significantly impaired her mental functions. The court examined medical evidence, psychiatric assessments, and testimony from experts and witnesses to ascertain the defendant's mental state at the relevant times.

The court found that the defendant was indeed suffering from a mental impairment that significantly affected her ability to form the necessary intent for the alleged offences. This impairment was deemed to be sufficient to negate the requisite mens rea, leading to the conclusion that she could not be held criminally responsible. The court accordingly directed that a special verdict be entered, acquitting the defendant of all charges due to her mental impairment. Additionally, the court ordered that the defendant submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to facilitate the making of a mental health order, ensuring appropriate care and supervision. The defendant's bail was also continued pending her attendance before the Tribunal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A special verdict be entered that the accused is not guilty of each of the charges against her because of mental impairment.

2. The accused submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable it to make a mental health order.

3. This judgment be referred to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal for its information.

4. The accused’s bail continue pending her attendance before ACAT pursuant to this order.

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.