R v Mathews - [2013] QCA 203

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mathews [2013] QCA 203

PARTIES:

R
v
MATHEWS, Russell Gordon Haig
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 296 of 2012
CA No 335 of 2012
CA No 29 of 2013
DC No 2121 of 2010
DC No 2798 of 1997

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 June 2013

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

In CA No 296 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.1.

In CA No 335 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.2.

In CA No 29 of 2013, the applications for extension of time to appeal and leave to adduce further evidence are refused.3.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – where the applicant is charged with offences under the Criminal Code (Cth) – where the Magistrate adjourned the committal proceeding in order to refer the applicant’s fitness to be tried to the District Court – where at the trial review of the trial of the issue of the applicant’s fitness to be tried the applicant submitted that the court should refuse to hear counsel for the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions until such time as the applicant’s human rights as recognised in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were recognised by the CDPP – where the review judge left the matter listed for trial – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal the review judge’s failure to refuse to hear counsel for the CDPP – whether there is any utility in reviewing the review judge’s decision to leave the matter listed for trial

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – where the issue of the applicant’s fitness to be tried was heard by a judge sitting with a jury – where the applicant appeared for himself in the trial of the issue of his fitness to plead – where the applicant suffers from a disability due to brain damage – where the applicant’s disability affects his concentration and causes fatigue – where the applicant was able to understand the charges and the nature of the court proceeding – where the applicant during his address to the jury stated he was fit to stand trial provided his special needs were accommodated – where the jury’s verdict was that the applicant was fit for trial – whether the manner in which the trial was conducted gave rise to any ground on which the jury verdict could be appealed

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant’s appeal against conviction for…

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 Mathews

Details

AGLC: R v Mathews [2013] QCA 203
Case: [2013] QCA 203
Decision Date: 30 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mathews involved the appellant who was charged with offences under the Criminal Code (Cth). The appellant, who suffered from a disability due to brain damage, was undergoing a committal proceeding when the Magistrate adjourned the matter to refer the appellant’s fitness to be tried to the District Court. The appellant submitted that the court should refuse to hear counsel for the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions until the appellant's human rights were recognised in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The review judge left the matter listed for trial, and the appellant applied for leave to appeal the review judge's decision not to refuse to hear counsel for the CDPP.

The legal issues before the court included whether there was any utility in reviewing the review judge’s decision to leave the matter listed for trial, and whether the manner in which the trial was conducted gave rise to any grounds for appeal regarding the jury's verdict on the appellant's fitness to be tried. The court considered the appellant's disability and its impact on his ability to concentrate and the fatigue it caused, as well as the appellant's capacity to understand the charges and the court proceedings. The appellant had appeared for himself during the trial of the issue of his fitness to plead, and he stated to the jury that he was fit to stand trial provided his special needs were accommodated. The jury ultimately found the appellant fit for trial.

The court determined that there was no utility in reviewing the review judge’s decision to leave the matter listed for trial as there was no apparent error in the judge's decision. The court also found that the manner in which the trial was conducted did not give rise to any grounds for appeal regarding the jury's verdict. The court held that the appellant's disability and its effects did not prevent him from understanding the charges or participating in the court proceedings, and therefore, the jury's verdict was soundly based.

The court refused the appellant's applications for leave to appeal in CA No 296 of 2012 and CA No 335 of 2012. Additionally, in CA No 29 of 2013, the court refused the applications for extension of time to appeal and leave to adduce further evidence, as the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal against conviction after the previous appeal had been dismissed on the merits.

Orders

Orders of the court

In CA No 296 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.1.

In CA No 335 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.2.

In CA No 29 of 2013, the applications for extension of time to appeal and leave to adduce further evidence are refused.3.

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 Mathews [2013] QCA 203
PARTIES:	R v MATHEWS, Russell Gordon Haig (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 296 of 2012 CA No 335 of 2012 CA No 29 of 2013 DC No 2121 of 2010 DC No 2798 of 1997
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 June 2013
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	In CA No 296 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.1. In CA No 335 of 2012, the application for leave to appeal is refused.2. In CA No 29 of 2013, the applications for extension of time to appeal and leave to adduce further evidence are refused.3.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – where the applicant is charged with offences under the Criminal Code (Cth) – where the Magistrate adjourned the committal proceeding in order to refer the applicant’s fitness to be tried to the District Court – where at the trial review of the trial of the issue of the applicant’s fitness to be tried the applicant submitted that the court should refuse to hear counsel for the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions until such time as the applicant’s human rights as recognised in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were recognised by the CDPP – where the review judge left the matter listed for trial – where the applicant applies for leave to appeal the review judge’s failure to refuse to hear counsel for the CDPP – whether there is any utility in reviewing the review judge’s decision to leave the matter listed for trial CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED – DETERMINATION OF ISSUES – where the issue of the applicant’s fitness to be tried was heard by a judge sitting with a jury – where the applicant appeared for himself in the trial of the issue of his fitness to plead – where the applicant suffers from a disability due to brain damage – where the applicant’s disability affects his concentration and causes fatigue – where the applicant was able to understand the charges and the nature of the court proceeding – where the applicant during his address to the jury stated he was fit to stand trial provided his special needs were accommodated – where the jury’s verdict was that the applicant was fit for trial – whether the manner in which the trial was conducted gave rise to any ground on which the jury verdict could be appealed CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant’s appeal against conviction for…