Legal Research
Cases
R v Mailes

R v Mailes

Case [2004] NSWCCA 394 3 December 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
150 A Crim R 365
62 NSWLR 181

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Graham Edward Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Adams J at 49; Howie J at 50

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Mental Health - accused unfit to be tried - special hearing - finding that accused committed the offence - fixing limiting term - principles - no non-parole period

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Sentencing Act (now s 135 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999)

CASES CITED: R v Bedford (1986) 5 NSWLR 711
R v Boyle (unreported - 18 September 1992)
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v MM (2002) 135 A Crim R 216
R v Mailes (2001) 53 NSWLR 25
R v Mailes [2003] NSWSC 707
R v Mitchell (1999) 108 A Crim R 85
R H McL v The Queen [2000] 203 CLR 452

PARTIES :
Regina v Graham Edward Mailes

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1939

COUNSEL: L Lamprati SC - Crown
D Dalton - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
S O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70084/02

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Wood CJ at CL

- 2 -

2004/1939

DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
HOWIE J

REGINA v GRAHAM EDWARD MAILES

Judgment

1 DUNFORD J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the limiting term of 25 years set by Wood CJ at CL following a jury verdict pursuant to s 22(1)(c) of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (the MHCP Act) that on the limited evidence available, the applicant on 23 March 1996 murdered Kim Louise Meredith.

2 The applicant was arrested on 28 March 1996 and charged with the murder. On 22 April 1997, he was committed for trial to the Supreme Court, but prior to the trial commencing, his legal representatives raised the issue of whether the applicant was fit to stand trial and a fitness hearing was ordered. In February 1999, a jury found that the applicant was not unfit to be tried. His trial commenced on 27 April 1999 and on 15 May 1999, the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On 10 September 1999, Newman J sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a term of 25 years and fixed a non-parole period of 18 years.

3 Once more prior to the trial and on two occasions during it the question of his possible unfitness was again raised but on each occasion Newman J declined to order a further fitness hearing. The applicant appealed against the refusal to order a further fitness hearing and this Court (Spigelman CJ, Wood CJ at CL and…

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 Mailes

Details

AGLC: R v Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 394
Decision Date: 3 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mailes, the accused was found to be unfit to be tried due to mental health issues. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria to determine whether the accused had committed the offence of which he stood accused and to fix a limiting term. The court had to determine whether the principles governing findings of fact in a special hearing applied, and whether a non-parole period should be fixed.

The central legal issue was whether the principles established in earlier cases governing findings of fact in special hearings applied in this case, where the accused was found to have committed the offence. The court considered whether it could make a finding of fact, and if so, what effect this had on the fixing of a limiting term. The court also had to consider whether a non-parole period should be fixed, given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the accused.

The court found that the principles governing findings of fact in special hearings applied in this case. It held that it could make a finding that the accused had committed the offence, and that this finding could be used in determining the limiting term. The court found that the offence was of a serious nature, and that the limiting term should be set at a level that reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the circumstances of the accused. The court declined to fix a non-parole period, finding that it was not appropriate in this case given the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the accused.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be detained in a psychiatric hospital until such time as he was fit to be tried, and that a limiting term be set at a level that reflected the seriousness of the offence while taking into account the circumstances of the accused. No non-parole period was fixed.

Orders