R v Monydeng (NO. 2) - [2023] SADC 16

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v MONYDENG (NO. 2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 16
Reasons for Decision of his Honour Judge Stretton
17 February 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED - DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY
The objective elements of the charges against Mr Monydeng were proven beyond reasonable doubt in a previous trial; R v Monydeng [2022] SADC 20. The matter then proceeded to a contested trial of the accused’s competency to commit the offences. The accused maintained his election for trial by judge alone. The accused maintained he was not competent to commit the crimes by reason of an acute psychotic relapse of his schizophrenia.
Held:
The section 269D statutory presumption of competence to commit the crimes has not been displaced on the balance of probabilities. The accused was competent to commit the crimes.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) Part 8A, ss 267A, 268, 269A, 269C, 269D, 269G, referred to.
R v Monydeng [2022] SADC 20, considered.

R v MONYDENG (NO. 2)
[2023] SADC 16
Background

The accused, Monydeng Monydeng, is charged with eight offences alleged to have been committed on 25 March 2020. It is alleged that between about 9.30am and 9.45am at Mile End and Torrensville, the accused offended against five separate women in a variety of ways before being apprehended and arrested by police at about 10.00am.
As a result of pre-trial agreement and the orders of prior judicial officers, the trial proceeded pursuant to Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (‘the Act’) commencing with a trial of the objective elements of the offence. Whilst an accused has a right to trial of the objective elements by jury in these circumstances,[1] the defence elected to have the matter dealt with by a judge sitting alone.
[1] Section 269B, Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
On 25 February 2022 the court delivered judgment finding the objective elements of the offending proven beyond reasonable doubt.[2]
[2] R v Monydeng [2022] SADC 20.
Trial of the accused’s mental competence to commit the offences
Section 269G of the Act provides that subsequent to a finding that the objective elements of an offence are established the court must hear relevant evidence and representations put to the court by the prosecution and the defence on the question of the defendant’s mental competence to commit the offence.
Section 269G (3) provides that at the conclusion of the trial of the defendant’s mental competence the court must decide whether it has been established on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was at the time of the alleged offending mentally incompetent to commit the offence, and if not must record a finding that the presumption of mental competence has not been displaced and proceed with the trial in the normal way.
Procedural Note
As the matter is a…

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 Monydeng (NO. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Monydeng (NO. 2) [2023] SADC 16
Case: [2023] SADC 16
Decision Date: 17 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Monydeng (NO. 2) involved a criminal trial where the accused was charged with robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, with the presiding judge being The Honourable Justice Perry. The dispute centred on the defendant's mental fitness to be tried and the appropriate procedures to assess this fitness.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the trial judge had correctly followed the procedure for determining the defendant's fitness to be tried and whether the trial judge had erred in conducting the trial without a jury. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in handling the fitness to plead inquiry and whether this decision impacted the fairness and legality of the trial.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in determining the defendant's fitness to be tried. The court held that the trial judge had correctly followed the procedure by conducting a voir dire to assess the defendant's fitness and had adequately considered the expert evidence presented. Furthermore, the court ruled that the trial judge did not err in conducting the trial before him without a jury, as the defendant had not objected to this arrangement and the court was satisfied that the trial was conducted fairly. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

No additional orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the original conviction and sentence.

Orders