R v Monaghan - [2009] ACTSC 61

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

R v JONATHON MONAGHAN
[2009] ACTSC 61 (27 May 2009)

CRIMINAL LAW – fitness to plead – s 311 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – likelihood of becoming fit to plead within 12 months – s 315A(4) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 12, 21
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 311, 311(1)(a)-(f), 312, 312(1), 313, 314, 314(3), 315, 315(2)(c), 315A, 315A(2), 315A(4)
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 4733

Ierace M, Intellectual Disability: a Manual for Criminal Lawyers (Redfern Legal Centre Publishing, 1989)

R v Enright [1990] 1 Qd R 563
R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
R v Zhang [2000] NSWCCA 344
R v Donovan [1990] WAR 112
R v Steurer [2008] ACTSC 141
Scott v Scott [1913] AC 417
Ngatayi v The Queen [1980] WAR 209

No. SCC 26 of 2009

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 27 May 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 26 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
V
JONATHON MONAGHAN

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  27 May 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

It be declared that Jonathon Monaghan is unfit to plead.

The proceedings be adjourned for a determination of whether Mr Monaghan is likely to become fit to plead within twelve months.

Everyone charged with a criminal offence is entitled to a fair trial. While this has been an important element of the common law, it is now mandated by s 21 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

An important constituent to the right to a fair trial is the ability for the accused person to participate in the trial. He or she must be able to comprehend the process whereby he or she is determined to be guilty, or not, of the offence charged. It is said to be a cardinal principle that persons cannot be tried for a crime unless they are in a position to defend themselves and that this includes being in a mental condition to do so: R v Enright [1990] 1 Qd R 563 at 573; R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1 at 4.

In this regard, the common law established the steps and processes which the accused must have the capacity to understand, do or know as a minimum for their participation to be such that the trial was fair. In R v Presser [1958] VR 45 at 48, Smith J set out these minimum requirements.

In Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230, the High Court adopted this approach. In their judgment, Mason CJ, Toohey and Gaudron JJ said (at 245):

Those standards… require the ability (1) to understand the nature of the charge; (2) to plead to the charge and to exercise the right of challenge; (3) to understand the nature of the proceedings, namely, that it is an inquiry as…

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 Monaghan

Details

AGLC: R v Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61
Case: [2009] ACTSC 61
Decision Date: 27 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Monaghan, the accused, Jonathon Monaghan, was charged with several criminal offences. The dispute centred on the issue of his fitness to plead, which was brought before the court. The decision was rendered by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Jonathon Monaghan was fit to plead to the charges against him. The court was required to consider the statutory criteria set out in section 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) to determine fitness to plead, and whether the accused was likely to become fit to plead within twelve months under section 315A(4) of the same Act. The court examined evidence from experts and assessed the accused's mental health and capacity to understand the proceedings and participate in his defence.

The court found that Jonathon Monaghan was unfit to plead due to his mental incapacity. The judge concluded that the accused's mental condition rendered him unable to understand the nature of the proceedings, to instruct counsel, or to participate in his defence. The court further found that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the accused would likely become fit to plead within twelve months. Consequently, the court declared that Jonathon Monaghan was unfit to plead and adjourned the proceedings for a future determination of his likelihood of becoming fit within the specified time frame.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It be declared that Jonathon Monaghan is unfit to plead.

2. The proceedings be adjourned for a determination of whether Mr Monaghan is likely to become fit to plead within twelve months.

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.