Legal Research
Cases
R v Monfries (No 2)

R v Monfries (No 2)

Case [2011] ACTSC 205 21 December 2011

Type to search within this case.

R v JUSTIN MONFRIES (No 2)
[2011] ACTSC 205 (21 December 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming incapable during trial – investigation of fitness – intellectual disability – finding fit to plead.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 311
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 315, 318, 326
Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 49
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90A

R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1
R v Presser [1958] VR 45

R v Monfries [2011] ACTSC 203

R v Fisher [2011] ACTSC 56
Egan and Ors v JG [2010] ACTSC 53

R v Chanthasaeng (2008) 7 DCLR (NSW) 158
R v Holt (2009) 9 DCLR (NSW) 87
R v Mailes (2001) 53 NSWLR 251

Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1
P v Police [2007] 2 NZLR 528
R v Monaghan (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 62
R v Dunne [2001] WASC 263
Dutfield v Gilbert H Stephens and Sons (1988) 18 Fam. Law 473
Pickersgill and Anor v Riley (Jersey) [2004] UKPC 14
R v Smith [2008] NSWDC 23
R v Tuigamala [2007] NSWSC 493
R v Stevens (2010) 107 SASR 456
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230

No. SCC 435 of 2008
No. SCC 201 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 21 December 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 435 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          No. SCC 201 of 2011

R
v
JUSTIN MONFRIES

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  21 December 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

Justin Monfries is fit to plead.

One of the cardinal principles of the criminal law, namely that people should not be tried for a crime unless in a mental condition to defend themselves, as stated as long ago as 1942 in R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1 (at 4), is not always easy to apply in relation to people with mental disturbances such as schizophrenia. It is even more difficult to apply in the case of those with an intellectual disability.

The classical tests, such as those set out in R v Presser [1958] VR 45 (at 48), are not obviously directed at people with an intellectual disability, though they do refer to comprehension which is an integral part of the challenge faced by those with an intellectual disability.

I have now to decide whether Justin Monfries, a man who has an intellectual disability, is fit to plead to a number of charges he faces in this court.

The test is now a legislative one and is set out in s 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which provides:

311 When a person is unfit to plead
(1)A person is unfit to plead to a charge if the person’s mental processes are disordered or impaired to the extent that the person cannot –
(a)understand the nature of the charge; or
(b)enter a plea to the charge and exercise the right to challenge jurors or the…

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 Monfries (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Monfries (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 205
Case: [2011] ACTSC 205
Decision Date: December 21, 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Monfries (No 2) before the court involved a criminal trial where the accused was assessed for fitness to plead, considering an intellectual disability. The matter was brought before the court due to the accused's mental condition, which raised questions about the ability to proceed with the trial. The court had to determine whether the accused was fit to understand the proceedings and participate in the defence.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address included the criteria for assessing fitness to plead and the implications of the accused's intellectual disability on their ability to participate in the trial. The court had to consider whether the accused could understand the nature of the charges, the possible consequences of the trial, and whether they could instruct counsel effectively. The court also needed to evaluate whether the accused's condition deteriorated during the trial, which would require a reassessment of their fitness.

In delivering the judgment, the court outlined the legal framework for assessing fitness to plead, referencing relevant case law and statutory provisions. The court concluded that, based on the evidence presented, the accused was indeed fit to plead at the time of the trial. The court found that the accused could comprehend the charges, follow the proceedings, and assist in their defence. The court further noted that there was no evidence to suggest the accused had become unfit to plead during the trial. Consequently, the trial proceeded, and the accused was found guilty on the charges brought against them.

The final orders of the court included the continuation of the trial, with the accused being deemed fit to plead. The judgment confirmed that the trial could proceed without any further inquiry into the accused's fitness. The court's decision highlighted the importance of a thorough assessment of fitness to plead and the need for ongoing monitoring during the trial, particularly in cases involving intellectual disability.

Orders