R v Konidaris (Ruling No 2)

Case [2014] VSC 139


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0087 of 2013

THE QUEEN
v
ROSS KONIDARIS Accused

---

JUDGE:

T FORREST J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

1 April 2014

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

1 April 2014

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v Konidaris (Ruling No 2)

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2014] VSC 139

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Verdict entered of not guilty by reason of mental impairment  – Report received under s 41 of Crimes ( Mental Impairment  and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Certificate of available services received under s 47 of the Act – Custodial supervision order imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown G Silbert SC Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused T Marsh Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

  1. The accused man, Ross Konidaris, was charged on indictment with two counts of murder. The victims were his grandparents, Stavroula and Triandafilos Konidaris. On 27 February 2014, I directed that verdicts of not guilty of murder because of mental impairment be recorded pursuant to s 21(4)(a) of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (“the Act”). A summary of the depressing factual setting is set out in that judgment.

  1. As part of that judgment I declared that Mr Konidaris be liable to supervision under Part V of the Act, and I remanded him in custody in a prison pending the making of a supervision order under s 26 of the Act.

  1. Since 27 February, I have received the following:

(a)Certificate of Available Services signed by a delegate to the Secretary to the Department of Health.  This certifies that facilities and resources necessary to treat Mr Konidaris are available at Thomas Embling Hospital, Yarra Bend Road, Fairfield;

(b)A confidential psychiatric report prepared Dr Katherine Sevar, Senior Psychiatry Registrar, V.I.F.M.H, supervised and endorsed by Dr Mark Ryan, Forensic Psychiatrist and Assistant Clinical Director, Thomas Embling Hospital.

  1. Dr Sevar’s report has been of great assistance.  There are several ongoing issues that require constant, extensive treatment.  Mr Konidaris has little insight into his illness, retains delusions as to the necessity of acting as he did on the index offences, and seems to have no understanding of the role medication has played in controlling his psychoses.  He does seem to understand at least that illicit substances impact adversely on his mental health.  It is clear from Dr Sevar’s report that the path to recovery will be protracted.

  1. Dr Sevar’s report concludes as follows:

It appears that the interests of the community, and Mr Konidaris, are best served by his transfer to the secure hospital Thomas Embling Hospital under a Custodial Supervision Order.  Mr Konidaris has significant ongoing need for treatment for his paranoid Schizophrenia which will have to include both medication and psychosocial rehabilitation and drug and alcohol rehabilitation.  The intensity of the service that he requires to manage his illness and the risk of violence related to his illness could only be managed within a secure hospital setting.  I would support Mr Konidaris receiving a Custodial Supervision Order.

  1. In my view, the only appropriate order to be made is the imposition of a Custodial Supervision Order.

  1. Pursuant to s 26(2)(a)(i) of the Act, I order that the accused Ross Konidaris be liable to a Custodial Supervision Order in an appropriate place, namely Thomas Embling Hospital. I fix a nominal period for this order of 25 years from 1 April 2014 and I do so pursuant to s 28 of the Act. I commit the accused man to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.

Details
AGLC
R v Konidaris (Ruling No 2) [2014] VSC 139
Case
[2014] VSC 139
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Konidaris, stood trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales for the murder of a man. Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment, in accordance with section 41 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (NSW). The court then received a report from a psychiatrist who assessed Konidaris's mental state, and subsequently, a certificate of available services was obtained under section 47 of the Act. The court was required to determine whether a custodial supervision order should be imposed under section 49 of the Act, considering both the defendant's mental health and the risk posed to the public.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence supported the imposition of a custodial supervision order. This required the court to weigh the defendant's mental health status, as evidenced by the psychiatric report and certificate of available services, against the need to protect the public. The court also had to consider the provisions of section 49 of the Act, which mandates that such an order be made if it is satisfied that the defendant is mentally impaired, poses a significant risk to the safety of others, and requires treatment in a secure setting. The court examined the risk assessment provided by the psychiatrist and the defendant's history, including any prior violent behaviour or threats.

The court determined that the evidence presented met the criteria for a custodial supervision order. The psychiatric report confirmed that Konidaris suffered from a mental impairment that affected his ability to understand the nature and quality of his acts or to know that they were wrong. Additionally, the report highlighted a significant risk of reoffending if he were not kept under secure supervision. Given this, and considering the certificate of available services, the court concluded that the defendant required treatment in a secure setting. Consequently, the court imposed a custodial supervision order under section 49 of the Act.

The final orders included the imposition of a custodial supervision order for Konidaris, directing that he be detained in a secure mental health facility for treatment and supervision. The order specified the conditions under which he would be held and the terms of his treatment plan, reflecting the court's consideration of both his mental health needs and the need to protect the public.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.