R v Lee - [2014] QCA 36

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lee [2014] QCA 36

PARTIES:

R
v
LEE, Aaron Boyd
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 223 of 2013
DC No 185 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore 20 February 2014
Reasons delivered 7 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 February 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore on 20 February 2014:

1.    Appeal against conviction allowed.

2.    Verdict of guilty set aside.

3.    Retrial ordered.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – where the appellant charged with rape – where the appellant suffered from bipolar affective disorder which was treated with medication – where the appellant stopped taking medication prior to trial – where before the arraignment the appellant’s counsel raised with the trial judge the concern that the appellant did not have sufficient mental capacity to proceed to trial – where the trial commenced – where during the first day of trial the appellant claimed to experience auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions – where before the second day of trial a psychiatrist assessed the appellant as temporarily unfit to stand trial – where the psychiatrist on the voir dire expressed his opinion based on symptoms reported by the appellant and his previous examination of the appellant – where the threshold question for the trial judge was whether there was a real question as to the appellant’s soundness of mind for determination by the jury – where the trial judge decided the threshold question on the basis that the appellant was fabricating the hallucinations and delusions he reported to his lawyers and psychiatrist – whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the issue of the soundness of mind of the appellant to the jury to decide

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 613, s 645

Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29, considered
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41, considered
R v Ogawa [2011] 2 Qd R 350; [2009] QCA 307, followed
R v Presser [1958] VR 45; [1958] VicRp 9, considered

COUNSEL:

J J Allen for the appellant
S Vasta for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: For the reasons given by Mullins J, I joined in the orders made by this Court on the hearing of the appeal.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the reasons prepared by Mullins J for the orders made.

MULLINS J: The appellant was convicted after trial before a jury of one count of rape.

The appellant appealed against his conviction on the basis of what occurred at the commencement of the trial, rather than the trial…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2014] QCA 36
Case: [2014] QCA 36
Decision Date: 20 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lee, was charged with the crime of rape and faced trial in the court. The primary issue in the case was whether the trial judge had correctly determined that Lee was fit to stand trial. Lee's fitness to be tried was called into question due to his bipolar affective disorder, which he managed with medication. Prior to the trial, Lee's counsel raised concerns about his client's mental capacity, and during the trial, Lee reported experiencing auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions. A psychiatrist assessed Lee as temporarily unfit to stand trial, but the trial judge decided that Lee was fabricating his symptoms and proceeded with the trial. The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the question of Lee's soundness of mind to the jury to decide.

The court examined whether the trial judge correctly assessed Lee's fitness to stand trial and whether the judge should have allowed the jury to determine this issue. The court held that the trial judge made an error by deciding the issue of Lee's fitness to stand trial without leaving it to the jury. The court found that the trial judge's decision was based on an assumption that Lee was fabricating his symptoms, without sufficient evidence to support this conclusion. The court held that it was the trial judge's responsibility to determine whether there was a real question about Lee's soundness of mind, and if so, to leave this issue to the jury. The court concluded that the trial judge's error in not leaving the issue to the jury was a significant procedural mistake that affected the fairness of the trial.

The court allowed the appeal against the conviction and set aside the verdict of guilty. The court ordered a retrial, emphasising the importance of ensuring that the issue of a defendant's fitness to stand trial is properly assessed and determined. The court's decision underscores the necessity of allowing the jury to decide on issues related to the defendant's mental fitness, ensuring a fair trial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 20 February 2014:

1. Appeal against conviction allowed.

2. Verdict of guilty set aside.

3. Retrial ordered.

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.

CITATION:	R v Lee [2014] QCA 36
PARTIES:	R v LEE, Aaron Boyd (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 223 of 2013 DC No 185 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	Orders delivered ex tempore 20 February 2014 Reasons delivered 7 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 February 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore on 20 February 2014: 1. Appeal against conviction allowed. 2. Verdict of guilty set aside. 3. Retrial ordered.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – where the appellant charged with rape – where the appellant suffered from bipolar affective disorder which was treated with medication – where the appellant stopped taking medication prior to trial – where before the arraignment the appellant’s counsel raised with the trial judge the concern that the appellant did not have sufficient mental capacity to proceed to trial – where the trial commenced – where during the first day of trial the appellant claimed to experience auditory hallucinations and paranoid delusions – where before the second day of trial a psychiatrist assessed the appellant as temporarily unfit to stand trial – where the psychiatrist on the voir dire expressed his opinion based on symptoms reported by the appellant and his previous examination of the appellant – where the threshold question for the trial judge was whether there was a real question as to the appellant’s soundness of mind for determination by the jury – where the trial judge decided the threshold question on the basis that the appellant was fabricating the hallucinations and delusions he reported to his lawyers and psychiatrist – whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the issue of the soundness of mind of the appellant to the jury to decide Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 613, s 645 Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29, considered Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41, considered R v Ogawa [2011] 2 Qd R 350; [2009] QCA 307, followed R v Presser [1958] VR 45; [1958] VicRp 9, considered
COUNSEL:	J J Allen for the appellant S Vasta for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent