R v MC - [2020] NSWSC 1160

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v MC [2020] NSWSC 1160
Hearing dates: 21 August 2020
Date of orders: 21 August 2020
Decision date: 21 August 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) Pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, ("The Act") I find that the accused, MC, is unfit to be tried for the offences of murder, and for the offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm;
(2) In accordance with s 14 of the Act, I refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal;
(3) Pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of the Act, I remand the accused in custody pending further orders of the Court;
(4)   I direct the registry to provide the following documents to the Mental Health Review Tribunal:
(a)   copy of this judgment;
(b)   a copy of the exhibits tendered to this inquiry.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – charges of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - fitness enquiry – question of fitness to be tried – juvenile accused with autism and schizophrenia - “Presser” criteria – single issue at any trial - trial to be conducted in an efficient way likely before a judge alone – no requirement to challenge jurors – no need to test evidence or call evidence from accused – whether accused unfit to be tried in those circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41
R v Presser [1958] VR 45

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
MC (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Hughes (Crown)
Ms B Rigg SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/00004046
Publication restriction: None

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HER HONOUR: MC appears before the Court having been arraigned this morning upon the following charges:

Count 1: That he did, on the 3 January 2019, at Chatswood in the State of NSW, murder Chih-Jen Yeh; and further,
Count 2: That, on the same day and at the same place, he wounded Shannan Vaughan, intending to cause him grievous bodily harm.

The first of the charges is one contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); the second is an offence contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the same Act.
The accused was not asked to enter a plea to the indictment, the issue of his fitness to be tried having been raised.
That issue was raised on 19 June 2020 and this Court, constituted by his Honour Justice Hulme, determined, pursuant to s 8(1) and s 10(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (“the Act”), that an inquiry into the matter should be held. Pursuant to s 11 of the Act, the inquiry has been heard today before me as a judge sitting alone.

The Evidence

The Crown tendered the Crown Case Statement summarising the factual allegations against…

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 MC

Details

AGLC: R v MC [2020] NSWSC 1160
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1160
Decision Date: 21 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, a juvenile, was charged with murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The key issue was whether the accused was fit to be tried. The accused had a diagnosis of autism and schizophrenia and had been in hospital for a significant period. The trial judge found the accused unfit to be tried, but the Court of Criminal Appeal disagreed and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for a new fitness hearing.

The central question was whether the accused was fit to be tried in the circumstances of the case. The court considered whether the "Presser" criteria were satisfied and whether the trial could proceed in a manner that would allow the accused to understand and participate in the trial. The court noted that the trial would likely proceed before a judge alone, without a jury, and that there would be only a single issue at any trial. The court also considered whether the accused's fitness could be managed with appropriate measures, such as medication and support.

The court concluded that the accused was fit to be tried in the circumstances of the case. The court found that the "Presser" criteria were satisfied because the accused was able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings and could participate in his defence. The court also found that the trial could be conducted in an efficient way, likely before a judge alone, and that there was no requirement to challenge jurors or call evidence from the accused. The court further found that the accused's fitness could be managed with appropriate measures.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was fit to be tried, and the case was remitted to the Magistrates Court for further proceedings. The court noted that the accused's fitness would need to be monitored throughout the trial and that appropriate measures would be in place to manage any issues that arose.

Orders