Legal Research
Cases
R v Marshall (No 2)

R v Marshall (No 2)

Case [2007] SADC 97 17 September 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application for Stay of Proceedings)
R v MARSHALL (No 2)
[2007] SADC 97
Reasons for Ruling of His Honour Judge Clayton
17 September 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - DELAY
Delay of 34 years since the alleged commission of offences - accused found mentally unfit to stand trial - suffering from physical disabilities - difficulty in providing instructions - no particular prejudice identified.
HELD: After balancing all considerations a permanent stay of proceedings under Part 8A should not be granted on the basis of the very unfitness for trial which was the reason for the order made under Part 8A.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, referred to.
R v Marshall [2006] SADC 115; Jago v District Court of NSW (1989) 168 CLR 23; Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75 at 111; R v Abdulla [2005] SADC 399; R v Littler (2001) 120 A Crim R 512; Longman v R (1980) 168 CLR 79; Crampton v R (2000) 206 CLR 161; Doggett v R (2001) 208 CLR 343; Aitchison v DPP (1966) 90 A Crim R 448 at 459-60; Subramaniam v R (2004) 211 ALR 1; R v Hakim (1989) 41 A Crim R 372 at 377; R v WRC (2003) 59 NSWLR 273 at 281; R v Burns (No 2) (1989) 169 ALR 149; R v Sexton (2000) 77 SASR 405; Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; R v Liddy (No 4) [2001] SASC 152; R v Polyukhovic Judgment S3782; R v Wagner (1993) 66 A Crim R 503; Gill v DPP (1992) 64 A Crim R 82 at 94; Hoch v R (1988) 165 CLR 292; Tolmie Unreported, CCA, NSW, No 60503 of 1994, 7 December 1994; Watson v Attorney-General (NSW) (1987) 8 NSWLR 685, considered.

R v MARSHALL (No 2)
[2007] SADC 97
Reasons for order made on 17 September 2007 dismissing the application by the accused for a permanent stay

The applicant is charged with two counts of indecent assault, four counts of buggery and one count of procuring an act of buggery. The offences are alleged to have been committed between 26 August 1973 and 2 October 1975. The applicant was first arraigned on those charges in this court on 14 November 2005.
On 21 July 2006 I found that the mental processes of the applicant were so distorted or impaired that he satisfied the requirements of subparagraphs (b) and (c) of section 269H of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and was mentally unfit to stand trial on the charges of the offences against him. As a consequence of that finding the court is required to proceed pursuant to section 269MB with a trial of the objective elements of the offence. Subsection (1) provides:
If the court records a finding that the defendant is mentally…

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 Marshall (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Marshall (No 2) [2007] SADC 97
Case: [2007] SADC 97
Decision Date: 17 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Marshall, was charged with multiple offences of sexual assault. The alleged incidents occurred over 34 years ago, and the respondent has since been found to be mentally unfit to stand trial. The matter was brought before the court to consider whether the proceedings should be stayed indefinitely due to the significant delay and the respondent's current incapacity. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate course of action.

The central legal issue was whether the significant delay in bringing the charges, combined with the respondent's current mental incapacity, justified an indefinite stay of proceedings. The court considered whether there was any identifiable prejudice to the respondent or to the administration of justice that would warrant such a measure. The court also examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual principles governing stays of proceedings.

The court found that, while there was a considerable delay in bringing the charges, no specific prejudice to the respondent or to the administration of justice had been identified. The court acknowledged the respondent's mental incapacity and physical disabilities, which made it difficult for him to provide instructions to his legal representatives. However, the court held that these factors alone did not justify an indefinite stay of proceedings. The court concluded that the appropriate course of action was to continue to monitor the respondent's mental condition and to take any necessary steps to ensure that the proceedings could proceed when the respondent was fit to stand trial.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings against the respondent would be stayed until such time as he was found to be mentally fit to stand trial. The court directed that regular reports on the respondent's condition be provided to the court, and that any necessary steps be taken to ensure that the respondent's rights were protected during the stay of proceedings. The court also emphasised the importance of expediting the trial once the respondent was found to be fit to stand trial, in light of the significant delay that had already occurred.

Orders