R v Mijac

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0075 of 2010

THE QUEEN

ROBERT MIJAC

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Mijac
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 457

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Attempted Murder – Plea of not guilty by reason of Mental Impairment – Consent Hearing – Section 21 Crimes (Mental Impairment & Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 - Reports furnished pursuant to s 41 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act – Non-custodial supervision order imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.N. Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G.J. Steward	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

On 10 November 2010[1], I declared pursuant to s 23 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act that you were liable for supervision under Part 5 of the Act, and declared the appropriate period to be 12 years and six months.
[1]R v Mijac [2010] VSC 670

The question then arose as to what the form of that order would be pursuant to s 26 of the Act. That is, would the order be a supervision order which was custodial, or a supervision order which was non-custodial?

I was obliged in any event to receive a report under s 41 of the Act, in terms of your prognosis. I received a report dated 9 May 2011 from Dr Hemlata Ranga which again raised the question of the form of the order.

I raised some minor misgivings about the matters contained in that report, and I have now received a supplementary report pursuant to s 41 from Dr Andrew Carroll. I am satisfied now, on the whole of the material that I have received, that the form of order should be non-custodial, and I so order.

I order that you be released on a non-Custodial Supervision Order, and that the following conditions are imposed on that order:

(1)That you be under the supervision of the authorised psychiatrist of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health, or his or her delegate.
(2)That you reside at a location known and approved by the authorised psychiatrist.
(3)That you abide by the lawful directions of the authorised psychiatrist or the nominee of the authorised psychiatrist or his or her delegate.
(4)That you comply with treatment, testing and attend appointments as directed by the authorised psychiatrist or their nominee or delegate.
(5)That you abstain from the abuse of alcohol and from the use of illicit drugs.
(6)That you do not leave the State of Victoria without written permission of the authorised psychiatrist or their nominee or delegate.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mijac, the defendant was charged with attempted murder. The dispute centred around the defendant's plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment, which required a consent hearing under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether the defendant was unfit to be tried due to a mental impairment, as claimed. This required the court to consider reports provided under section 41 of the Act, which detail the defendant's mental condition and its impact on their fitness to stand trial.

The court meticulously reviewed the psychiatric reports and other evidence presented. It assessed whether the defendant's mental impairment was such that it would prevent them from understanding the proceedings, participating in their defence, or comprehending the nature and consequences of the plea. The court found that the defendant's mental condition did impair their fitness to be tried, leading to the conclusion that they were unfit to be tried due to mental impairment. Consequently, the court imposed a non-custodial supervision order, as provided for under section 23 of the Act, instead of proceeding with a criminal trial.

Following the determination that the defendant was unfit to be tried, the court ordered that the defendant be subject to a non-custodial supervision order, which included specific conditions designed to ensure public safety and the defendant's access to necessary treatment. This order reflects the court's intention to balance the need for public safety with the requirement to provide appropriate care and treatment for the defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established