R v Miller [No.1] No. Sccrm-00-101 - [2000] SASC 147

R v MILLER [No.1]
[2000] SASC 147

In the Criminal Jurisdiction

MARTIN J. The accused is charged with Attempted Rape. He suffers from a mental disorder. Prior to the accused being arraigned before me, counsel for the accused raised the question as to the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial (“mental fitness”). In addition, counsel indicated that the accused would rely upon a defence of mental incompetence. Questions of mental fitness and mental competence to commit an offence (“mental competence”) must be investigated in accordance with the mental impairment provisions found in Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the CLCA”). Part 8A is a code for dealing with issues of mental fitness and mental competence (Question of Law Reserved (No. 1 of 1997) (1997) 70 SASR 251). In that context, I was asked to consider issues concerning the accused’s right to elect to have the investigation under Part 8A determined by a judge sitting alone and the impact of such an election upon the accused’s right to have the substantive issues concerning the charge determined by a jury.
The accused’s right to elect that a Part 8A investigation be conducted and determined by a judge sitting alone is governed by s 269B(1) of the CLCA and not s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (R v T [1999] SASC 429). The Crown submitted that when the scheme of Part 8A is viewed in its entirety and regard is had to the detailed procedures set out in Part 8A, once an election is made pursuant to s 269B(1) an accused is bound by that election for the entirety of the proceedings. Counsel also referred to the possibility that if an accused is able to make the choice contemplated, it could result in witnesses for the prosecution giving evidence on more than one occasion. In particular, in cases of sexual assault such a consequence would be contrary to the legislative initiatives designed to ensure that other than in exceptional circumstances complainants in sexual assault cases should not be required to give evidence on more than one occasion.
The relevant provisions within Part 8A are as follows:
“Distribution of judicial functions between judge and jury
269B.       (1)    An investigation under this Part by the Supreme Court or the District Court into -
(a).... a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence or a defendant’s mental fitness to stand trial; or
(b)whether elements of the offence have been established,
is to be conducted before a jury unless the defendant has elected to have the matter dealt with by a judge sitting alone.
(2)    The same jury may deal with issues arising under this Part about a defendant’s mental competence to commit an offence, or fitness to stand trial, and the issues on which the defendant is to be tried, unless the trial judge thinks there are special reasons to have separate juries.
(3)    Any other powers or functions conferred on a court by this Part are…

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 Miller [No.1] No. Sccrm-00-101

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [No.1] No. Sccrm-00-101 [2000] SASC 147
Case: [2000] SASC 147
Decision Date: 2 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Miller, the accused was charged with attempted rape and was found to suffer from a mental disorder. Counsel for the accused raised questions regarding the accused's mental fitness to stand trial and their intention to rely upon a defence of mental incompetence. The court was required to consider the accused's right to elect to have the investigation under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA) determined by a judge sitting alone, as well as the impact of such an election on the accused's right to have the substantive issues concerning the charge determined by a jury. The court held that an accused's right to elect to have an investigation into mental fitness or mental competence conducted and determined by a judge sitting alone does not affect their right to have the determination as to whether the elements of the offence established decided by a jury, provided that the hearing concerning the elements is also part of the Part 8A investigation.

The court's reasoning was based on the plain wording of s 269B(1) of the CLCA, which applies to an investigation under Part 8A and confers upon an accused the right of election with respect to such an investigation. The court also considered the overall scheme of Part 8A and the intention of Parliament to create a regime that is fair to every accused and provides appropriate flexibility by giving trial judges the discretion to determine the order of proceedings. The court concluded that the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in s 269B(1) should prevail, as it allows for flexibility and facilitates choices by an accused in certain circumstances. The practical ramifications of such an election can be minimised if the investigation concerning mental fitness or mental competence is conducted first.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the accused in the case of R v Miller is entitled to elect to have an investigation pursuant to Part 8A into mental fitness and mental competence heard and determined by a judge sitting alone while choosing to have the determination as to whether the elements of the offence have been established decided by a jury, provided that the hearing concerning the elements is also part of the Part 8A investigation. This ruling provides greater flexibility for accused individuals in cases where mental fitness and mental competence are at issue, while still ensuring that the proceedings remain fair and in line with the overall scheme of Part 8A of the CLCA.

Orders