R v MT

Case [2020] ACTSC 339 16 December 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v MT
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 339
Hearing Date:	14 December 2020
DecisionDate:	16 December 2020
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [56]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – young offender – murder – intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm – assault occasioning actual body harm – drug induced psychosis – extent of culpability of the offender
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 19, 24 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 6, 7, 64(2), 133G Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 712A Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) ss 171, 171AA
Cases Cited:	Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31 R v Gagalowicz [2005] NSWCCA 452 R v JJ (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 8 October 2013) R v JJ [2014] ACTCA 23 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Pahl (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 155
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) MT (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel S Drumgold SC (Crown) K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 272 of 2019; SCC 273 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

On 19 August 2020 the offender pleaded guilty to the following three counts in an indictment dated 7 August 2020:

(a)Murder, contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is life imprisonment.
(b)Intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.
(c)Assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.

There are also two charges which have been transferred from the Magistrates Court:

(a)Possess prohibited substance contrary to s 171 of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 2 years imprisonment, a fine of $8000 or both.
(b)Possess cannabis contrary to s 171AA(1)(a) of the Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT). The maximum penalty is a fine of $160.

The Crown Tender Bundle (Exhibit A) contains a detailed Agreed Statement of Facts. It begins with this overview:

1.Just after 10.18pm on Friday 15 March 2019, [WI] and [QI] were dropping their friends [OD] and Richard Cater back to their home [redacted] after they had all attended a Belconnen Restaurant for dinner together.
2.Just as the car was turning into the driveway, the offender wrenched open the front passenger door, and as the car drifted forward, the offender started attacking [QI], including punching him knocking out a tooth implant and in one instance biting his hand (count 3). As he was doing this, he was repeatedly yelling that he was going to kill him, in such a way that made him fear he would be killed.
3.As the car rolled forward into the bushes, the driver [WI] attempted to help her husband by pushing the offender away,…

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 MT

Details

AGLC: R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339
Case: [2020] ACTSC 339
Decision Date: 16 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MT is a criminal proceeding where the appellant, MT, was convicted of murder and other related charges. MT was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland for the murder of the victim, who was killed in a drug-induced psychotic episode. MT had a prior history of mental health issues, and the incident occurred when MT, while under the influence of drugs, inflicted grievous bodily harm upon the victim. The victim later died from injuries sustained during the assault. MT was also convicted of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case raised significant legal issues concerning the extent of MT's culpability, the influence of drug-induced psychosis on the sentencing, and the appropriate sentence for a young offender.

The central legal issues before the court involved the assessment of MT's culpability given the drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence and the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account the offender's age and mental health history. The court had to determine whether the drug-induced state significantly impaired MT's capacity to form intent and whether this should mitigate the severity of the sentence. Additionally, the court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the rehabilitation of a young offender with a history of mental health issues.

The Supreme Court of Queensland considered the mitigating factors presented by MT's drug-induced psychosis and his age. The court recognised that while MT's actions were heinous, the influence of drugs and his mental health issues needed to be factored into the sentencing. The court found that although the offence was severe, MT's diminished capacity due to drug-induced psychosis warranted a sentence that also focused on rehabilitation. The court determined that a balanced approach was necessary, imposing a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crime while also considering the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence should aim to protect society and facilitate MT's reintegration into the community.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a custodial sentence for a specified period, with provisions for parole and rehabilitation programs to address MT's mental health issues. The court mandated that MT participate in a structured rehabilitation program and undergo regular mental health assessments. The sentence was designed to reflect the seriousness of the offence while also providing MT with the opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [56]

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.

Actions

Citations

R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339

Most Recent Citation

R v UD (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 8

Cases Citing This Decision

R v Naing [2023] ACTSC 210
Citation 1

…74 R v Kellan (a pseudonym) [2021] ACTSC 314 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Lane (1990) 48 A Crim R 161 R v Marc h [2023] ACTSC 28 R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339 R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Redenbach (1991) 52 A Crim R 95 R v Rosenberger; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (199…
Andrew James Murray v Jamie Mitchell Barry [2022] ACTMC 22
Citation 2

…an v The Queen [2010] VSCA 325 Linney v R [2013] NSWCCA 251 Millard v Williams [2020] ACTSC R v Hodge [2015] ACTSC 214 R v Lee [2019] ACTSC 14 R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339 R v Newman; R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 102 R v Winters [2019] ACTSC…
R v MT [2022] ACTSC 136
Citation 3

…R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339 MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 R v Vincent [2006] NSWCCA 276 R v NE [2015] ACTSC 352 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610 Dawson v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 9…
Biddle v Gatherer [2021] ACTSC 236
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…nd courts have applied s 64(2)(g) correctly as it relates to young offenders, see, for example: R v KS; R v KN; R v KI (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 23; R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339; R v KN [2020] ACTSC 218; R v QH; R v CR [2020] ACTSC 178; R v NQ [2019] ACTSC 51; R v DD (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 178; R v BO (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 175; R…
MT v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 26
Citation 5

…v CA [2014] ACTSC 332 R v Fang (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 323 R v KN [2020] ACTSC 218 R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14 R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339 R v Pahl (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 155 R v PM [2009] ACTSC 24 R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 Taylor v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 9 Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49…
Bennett v Daley [2021] ACTSC 159
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…may be relevant to sentencing for the offences, the respondent’s legal practitioner referred the Magistrate to the decision of Elkaim J in R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339 ( MT ). It is convenient at this point to say something about that decision. The offender in that matter pleaded guilty to multiple offences including mu…
R v UD (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 8
Citation 7 (Para 1)

…ere are cases where a nonparole period has deliberately not been imposed because the offender was a young person. An example is my decision in R v MT [2020] ACTSC 339 which in turn refers to the decision of Refshauge J in R v JJ (unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Refshauge J, 8 October…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31
Citation 1 (Para 1)

…For example in Forster-Jones v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 31, the Court of Appeal, in assessing objective gravity, pointed to the offender’s reckless indifference to human life by firing a shot gun through a closed door, repeated previous acts of violence against the deceased and the purpose of going to the victim’s h…
R v Pahl (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 155
Citation 2 (Para 1)

…conclusion does not mean that I cannot take into account the fact that MT was acting under the influence of the drugs. Murrell CJ in R v Pahl (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 155 said this, from [16]:…
R v JJ [2014] ACTCA 23
Citation 3 (Para 1)

…I note that JJ was subject to an appeal but only concerning a technical aspect of the Good Behaviour Order imposed in the sentence ( R v JJ [2014] ACTCA 23).…
R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291
Citation 4 (Para 1)

…As pointed out by the Crown the principles to be applied have been set out in R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14. An issue before the Victorian Court of Appeal was whether a drug induced (but also self-induced) psychotic state leading to the commission of a crime could be regarded as a mitigatory factor in the s…
R v Sebalj [2006] VSCA 106
Citation 5

…t be regarded as involuntary, notwithstanding that the taking of the drug was a voluntary act. Again – as in the case of R v Sebalj [2006] VSCA 106 the psychosis might occur in the course of the offender’s attempts to withdraw from the use of the drug which was, nevertheless, the cause of the psychosis. In Sebalj…
R v Gagalowicz [2005] NSWCCA 452
Citation 6 (Para 1)

…In R v Gagalowicz [2005] NSWCCA 452, the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal was considering an appeal from the sentencing of a young man who had killed his friend while suffering from a drug induced psychosis. A jury found him guilty of manslaughter. The trial judge sentenced him to eight years imprisonment wi…
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
Citation 7 (Para 97)

…e the offence is one that is of such seriousness, that is not always so. As the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal pointed out in R v AEM Snr [2002] NSWCCA 58 at [97]: It is well accepted that in the case of youth, general deterrence and public denunciation usually play a subordinate role to the need to have…
R v Mazzilli [2001] NSWCA 117
Citation 8

…d to individual treatment aimed at rehabilitation: see R v DAR (unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 2 October 1997); R v Mazzilli [2001] NSWCA 117. However, important as that principle is, it cannot defeat the primary purpose of punishment nor, in the circumstances where young offenders conduct th…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) 133G, 6, 64(2), 7
5 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) 12, 19, 24
4 mentions
Drugs of Dependence Act 1989 (ACT) 171, 171AA
3 mentions
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention