R v MacGowan - [2017] SADC 107

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MACGOWAN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 107
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Costello
27 September 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
The applicant is charged with aggravated robbery and making off without payment. Investigation into applicant's mental fitness to stand trial pursuant to the provisions of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 was considered appropriate.
HELD: The applicant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that he is unfit to stand trial on the charged offences.
Criminal Law Consoidation Act 1935 ss 269H, 269I, 269J, referred to.
R v Presser [1958] VR 45; R v Gillard [2006] SASC 46; Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230; R v Taylor [2014] SASCFC 112; R v Stevens (2010) 107 SASR 456; R v Wahlstedt (2003) 231 LSJS 140, considered.

R v MACGOWAN
[2017] SADC 107
Introduction

Luke MacGowan is charged with one count of making off without payment and one count of aggravated robbery.
The particulars of the offence of making off without payment are as follows:
Particulars of Offence
On the 26^th day of June 2016 at Whyalla Stuart in the said State, knowing that payment was required or expected for goods or services, namely fuel, of the value of $58.00, dishonestly made off intending to avoid payment.
The particulars of the offence of aggravated robbery are as follows:
Particulars of Offence
On the 26^th day of June 2016 at Whyalla Norrie in the said State, committed robbery by using force, or threatening to use force, against Luke Brougham and Maria Martin in order to commit theft by taking cash of the value of $2,500 or less from Des’s Cabs, Oborn Street, and the force was used, or the threat was made, at the time of, or immediately before or after, the theft.
It is further alleged that the circumstances of aggravation are that the offender committed the offence in company with one or more other persons and the offender used, or threatened to use, an offensive weapon to commit, or when committing, the offence.
Mr MacGowan has made an application pursuant to s 269J(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Consoidation Act 1935 (‘the Act’) for an investigation into his mental fitness to stand trial.
On an application of this nature Mr MacGowan carries the onus as s 269I of the Act provides that:
269I—Presumption of mental fitness to stand trial
A person's mental fitness to stand trial is to be presumed unless it is established, on an investigation under this Division, that the person is mentally unfit to stand trial.
The Legal Test
The test for whether a person is mentally unfit to stand trial is set out in s 269H of the Act which provides:
269H—Mental unfitness to stand trial
A person is mentally unfit to stand trial on a charge of an offence if…

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 MacGowan

Details

AGLC: R v MacGowan [2017] SADC 107
Case: [2017] SADC 107
Decision Date: 27 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MacGowan was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, MacGowan, was charged with the murder of his partner and the attempted murder of her father. The dispute centred around the defence of mental impairment. MacGowan argued that he was not criminally responsible for his actions due to a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his acts or knowing that they were wrong.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the issue of criminal responsibility and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that MacGowan lacked the requisite mens rea due to his mental impairment. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the trial judge had correctly applied the criteria for establishing a mental disorder under the relevant criminal law provisions and whether the jury was properly guided in assessing MacGowan's state of mind at the time of the offences.

The High Court found that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the principles of criminal responsibility and the defence of mental impairment. The court held that the trial judge's directions were consistent with established legal principles and provided the jury with a proper framework for considering the evidence. The court also concluded that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that MacGowan was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental disorder. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal, thereby affirming the conviction for murder and the finding of not criminally responsible due to mental impairment. This decision underscores the importance of accurately applying the legal standards for mental impairment defences and ensuring that juries are properly informed about the criteria for assessing criminal responsibility.

Orders