R v Mason-Woods No. Sccrm-97-224 Judgment No. S6513

[1997] SASC 6513

R  v  MASON-WOODS

Court of Criminal Appeal
Coram: Matheson, Duggan and Nyland JJ

Nyland J:

This is an appeal against sentence.  The appellant was sentenced in the District Court on 16 December 1993 to 11 months imprisonment for the offence of supplying amphetamines. The sentence was suspended upon the appellant entering into a bond in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years.

A condition of the bond required the appellant to perform 200 hours of community service within a period of 12 months. The appellant failed to complete or even attend for any of the hours so ordered.  Proceedings were instituted against the appellant for estreatment of the bond.

The appellant thereafter appeared before a judge in the District Court with respect thereto on 30 June 1997.  At that time the appellant appeared in person.  He admitted the breach of the bond.

In the course of the hearing, he mentioned that he had been “unwell in the mind of a schizophrenic”.  He also made a number of other comments which, in my view, raised a doubt as to his ability to sufficiently understand the proceedings.  He rejected the offer made by the judge to adjourn the proceedings to enable him to obtain legal assistance.  He also declined the opportunity to obtain a medical report which might have assisted in providing an explanation as to his failure to comply with the community service order.  He expressed the desire that he be sentenced immediately.

Eventually, in view of the attitude expressed by the appellant, the judge acceded to his request that he be dealt with forthwith.  The judge indicated that there was no material before him which would justify the breach of the bond being excused and he, therefore, made an order that the bond be revoked and the sentence served.

On hearing of the appeal, leave was given to the appellant to tender the report dated 11 September 1997 of Dr Raeside, a psychiatrist employed by the Forensic Mental Health Service.  Dr Raeside is also a consultant psychiatrist based at James Nash House.  He had been the appellant's treating psychiatrist during two admissions to James Nash House.  He formally interviewed the appellant for the purpose of the preparation of his report on 8 September 1997.  It is unnecessary to repeat all of the contents of that report.  His diagnosis of the appellant was that he suffered from chronic paranoid schizophrenia.  He said it was likely that the appellant had been psychotic to some extent throughout most of the last five years.  He believed that it was likely that the appellant was suffering from the effects of schizophrenia at the time he was required to undertake community service, that being the period between 16 December 1993 and 16 December 1994.

He did not think the schizophrenia itself prevented the appellant from undertaking the community service.  Rather, it was more likely that his judgment might have been impaired, particularly in terms of not seeking a medical certificate to excuse him from community service at the time, because of his fear of going to see doctors and being put under psychiatric medication.  He considered that the appellant's prognosis was relatively poor and that he would continue to experience psychotic relapses in the future.

At the time of the imposition of the original bond, the sentencing judge was provided with a report of Mr Alan Fugler.  The contents of that report mentioned the appellant's psychiatric problems and suggested that the appellant was probably an unsuitable candidate for the imposition of a community service order in any event.

A breach of bond is nevertheless a serious matter.  The situation in this case, however, would appear to be akin to that which arose in the case of R v Bates (an unreported decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal delivered on 23 January 1997), in that the failure by the appellant to carry out the community service order would appear to be more a manifestation of his disorder rather than a deliberate defiance of the authority of the court.

The appellant does not appear to have committed any further offences since the bond was imposed in 1993, although he did breach the conditions of his bail agreement by failing to attend when this appeal was originally listed for hearing.

Following the revocation of the order for suspension of sentence, the appellant was in custody for a period of about three months and one week, in addition to which he has been in custody since, I think, the Sunday of this week following the execution of the warrant for his failure to appear on the last occasion.

Having taken into account all the circumstances of this matter, and in particular the matters mentioned by Dr Raeside in his report, I consider that there are proper grounds to excuse the failure of the appellant to comply with the conditions of the bond. I would, therefore, allow the appeal. Pursuant to s.58(3) of the Sentencing Act, I would set aside the order revoking the order for suspension of sentence. I would cancel the unperformed hours of community service, but I would direct that the appellant enter into a further bond in the sum of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months, and that during the period of the bond, he be under the supervision of a probation officer and that he undergo such psychiatric treatment as may be directed by his probation officer.

Matheson J:

I agree with the order proposed by Nyland J and with her reasons.

Duggan J:

I agree with the orders proposed by Nyland J and I also agree with her reasons.

Matheson J:

The order of the court will be as founded by Nyland J. 

Duggan J:

I will explain to you the terms of the  bond.  It means that you've got to be of good behaviour for  a period of 12 months.  There will be a probation officer  who will supervise you, and you are to obey the directions of the probation officer, and that includes any directions  that the probation officer might give you in relation to  any psychiatric treatment. 

If you are of good behaviour and you obey the directions of the probation officer, then at the end of 12  months everything will be finished, and you need not worry.  If, on the other hand, you do not obey the probation officer or there is some breach because you committed an offence, you have to be brought back to this court and dealt with. 

It would not be brought back for sentence, but it would be brought back in relation to the amount of money you would be liable to owe, namely the thousand dollars.  If you understand that, and you agree, you can sign it.

Bond Acknowledged