R v Ohlsen - [2018] NSWSC 1193

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ohlsen [2018] NSWSC 1193
Hearing dates: 2 August 2018
Date of orders: 02 August 2018
Decision date: 02 August 2018
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) I find on the balance of probabilities that the accused is not fit to be tried for the offence of murder charged against her, and is unlikely to become fit in a twelve month period.
(2) Pursuant to s 14(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) the accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
(3) Bail is refused until such time as the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal has been given effect to.

Catchwords: CRIME – MURDER- question of accused’s fitness to be tried raised in good faith – inquiry held – evidence of long enduring and treatment resistant schizophrenia – unfitness to be assessed contemporaneously – accused currently displaying signs of severe mental illness – Presser criteria applied – accused found unfit and unlikely to become fit in a 12 month period – referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Kesavarajah v The Queen [1994] HCA 41; 181 CLR 230
Ngatayi v The Queen [1980] HCA 18; 147 CLR 1
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Lauren Jessie Ohlsen (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Hobart SC (Crown)
Mr M Ramage QC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Timothy Hemsley & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/263573
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

WILSON J: Lauren Jesse Ohlsen stands indicted with the murder of Scott Anthony Dickinson, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The murder is alleged to have occurred on 1 September 2016 at Albury in this State.
The accused first appeared before this Court on 4 August 2017. The matter did not proceed to arraignment, but was adjourned then and on a number of subsequent occasions, before, on 4 May 2018, the question of her fitness to be tried was raised.
That question having been raised in good faith, an inquiry in order to determine whether the accused is unfit to be tried for the offence was fixed for 2 and 3 August 2018, (the earliest occasion that was practicable), as contemplated by s 10(1)(b) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1999 (NSW).
The Court heard evidence and received submissions during the course of this morning as to the question of fitness.
Before turning to the evidence, it is useful to set out the relevant law.

The Law

The conduct of a fitness inquiry is governed by Part 2 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the Act”).
Section 6 of the Act requires that the question of a person’s unfitness to be tried for an offence is to be determined on the balance of probabilities. Pursuant to s 11(1), the question of a person’s unfitness to be…

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 Ohlsen

Details

AGLC: R v Ohlsen [2018] NSWSC 1193
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1193
Decision Date: 02 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ohlsen involved the defendant, Ohlsen, who was charged with murder. The primary issue was whether Ohlsen was fit to stand trial, given his history of long-term and treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was tasked with determining whether Ohlsen's mental condition rendered him unfit to be tried and, if so, whether he was likely to become fit within a reasonable timeframe.

The court had to assess Ohlsen's fitness to stand trial based on the evidence presented regarding his mental health condition. This involved considering whether his schizophrenia was severe enough to impair his ability to understand the proceedings or participate in his defence. The court applied the Presser criteria to evaluate Ohlsen's fitness, which included examining his understanding of the charges, his ability to assist in his defence, and the impact of his mental state on the trial process. The evidence showed that Ohlsen was currently displaying signs of severe mental illness, which significantly affected his cognitive functions and overall fitness to be tried.

After a thorough examination of the evidence and expert testimonies, the court concluded that Ohlsen was unfit to be tried due to his enduring and treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The court found that he was unlikely to become fit within a 12-month period. Consequently, Ohlsen was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for further assessment and potential treatment. The court's decision was based on the necessity to ensure that the trial process was fair and that Ohlsen's mental health needs were appropriately addressed.

Orders