R v Pahl

Case [2017] ACTSC 68 31 March 2017

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Pahl
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 68
Hearing Dates:	9 – 10 February 2017
DecisionDate:	31 March 2017
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Defence of mental impairment not established. Verdicts of guilty on all counts.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Statutory defence of mental impairment –Trespass and burglary – Alcohol-induced psychosis – History of alcohol-induced psychotic episodes – Alleged mental vulnerability to alcohol-induced psychosis – Any mental disorder only background feature – Healthy mind – Psychotic episode a reactive condition
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 7.3(9) Criminal Code Act 2002 (ACT) ss 15(5), 18(2), 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 311, 403(1) Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) ss 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	Bouchard-Lebrun v The Queen [2011] 3 RSC 575 Cooper v The Queen [1980] 1 SCR 1149 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751 R v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361 R v Doolan [2010] NSWSC 147 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 28 R v Hadfield (1800) 27 St Tr 1281 R v Konidaris [2014] VSC 89 R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718 R v Martin (No 1) [2005] VSC 518; 159 A Crim R 314 R v Morrison [2006] SASC 344 R v Ham [2009] NSWSC 296 R vRadford (1985) 42 SASR 266; 20 A Crim R 388
Texts Cited:	Australian Capital Territory, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 10 December 2002 Stephen Odgers, Principles of Federal Criminal Law (Lawbook Co., 3^rd ed, 2009)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Kevin Pahl (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Saikal (Crown) Mr S Whybrow (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Ben Aulich & Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 280 of 2015; SCC 279 of 2015

Murrell CJ

The proceedings

Pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (SCA), the accused elected in writing to be tried by a judge alone. His legal adviser certified that he had received advice and made the election freely. The election and certificate were filed in accordance with s 68B(1)(c) of the SCA.

The accused was charged that on 10 February 2015 he:

(a)Count 1: Entered or remained in a building, 14–16 Brindabella Circuit, Canberra Airport, as a trespasser with intent to commit an offence in the building that is punishable by five years’ imprisonment or longer.
(b)Count 2: Recklessly caused damage to property belonging to Canberra Airport Group Pty Ltd (extensive damage within the building).
(c)Count 3: Recklessly caused damage to property belonging to Canberra Airport Group Pty Ltd (a ticket machine).
(d)Count 4: Recklessly caused damage to property belonging to Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (a Toyota High Lux utility vehicle).

Count 1 alleged burglary, an offence against s 311 of the Criminal Code…

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 Pahl

Details

AGLC: R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68
Case: [2017] ACTSC 68
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the accused, Mr Pahl, was charged with multiple offences including trespass and burglary. The dispute arose from a series of incidents where Mr Pahl unlawfully entered properties while suffering from alcohol-induced psychosis. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether Mr Pahl could rely on the statutory defence of mental impairment under the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). The court had to determine whether Mr Pahl's alcohol-induced psychosis constituted a mental disorder at the time of the offences.

The court examined whether Mr Pahl's history of alcohol-induced psychotic episodes constituted a mental disorder that rendered him unfit to be held criminally responsible. The court found that although Mr Pahl had a history of alcohol-induced psychotic episodes, his mental state at the time of the offences was a reactive condition triggered by acute intoxication. The court held that Mr Pahl's underlying mental condition was not a disorder that was present at the time of the offences. Consequently, the court concluded that Mr Pahl's alcohol-induced psychosis did not meet the statutory criteria for the defence of mental impairment. The court found Mr Pahl guilty on all counts.

Given the court's determination that Mr Pahl did not satisfy the statutory defence of mental impairment, the verdicts of guilty were upheld. The court dismissed the defence and Mr Pahl was found guilty on all counts of trespass and burglary.

Orders

Orders of the court

Defence of mental impairment not established. Verdicts of guilty on all counts.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68

Most Recent Citation

R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Barker
[2023] ACTSC 378

…TSC 241 R v Gardner [2022] ACTSC 36 R v Goonerage [2005] ACTSC 96 R v Griffiths (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 118 R v Klobucar (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 347 R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68; 266 A Crim R 41 R v Pearson [2020] ACTSC 375 R v Potts [2018] ACTSC 299 R v Salcedo; R v Stretton (No 3) [2018] ACTSC 305 R v Walker (No 2) [2021] A…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kakar
[2023] ACTSC 236

…127 R v Klobucar (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 53 R v Matthews [2022] ACTSC 105 R v Mkpo-Uto Aniefiok Edet [2020] ACTSC 276 R v Ophel [2019] ACTSC 325 R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68; 266 A Crim R 41 R v Robinson [2004] VSC 505; 11 VR 165 R v Singsathitsuk [2021] ACTSC 26 R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146; 269 FLR 233 R v Steurer [2009]…
R v Yeaman
[2021] ACTSC 252 Para 1

…The prosecution referred to R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68. In that case, the central issue was whether the accused’s psychotic state at the time of the offending conduct reflected a “mental impairment”. The accused contended that he suffered from mild neurocognitive disorder or “mental impairment” that made him more vu…
R v Jackson
[2021] ACTSC 120 Para 1

…ason of one or other, or both, of the matters referred to in s 28(1)(a) or (b). The opinion of Dr Allnutt is consistent with the decision in R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68 at 133; 266 A Crim R 41. It is not necessary to dissect out the separate probabilities of each of these alternatives but is sufficient to reach the o…
R v Mathews
[2020] ACTSC 364

…rne [2017] ACTSC 36 R v Kaihea [2020] ACTSC 17 R v Mathews [2019] ACTSC 262 R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 R v McMahon (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 299 R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68 R v Sila [2015] ACTSC 64 R v Taylor (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 377…
Fang v R
[2018] NSWCCA 210 Para 76

…the mind as understood in the common law ”. However, as the appellant placed particular reliance on the observations made in Doolan and R v Pahl [2017] ACTSC 68, it is necessary to consider those decisions.…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

R v Fang (No 3)
[2017] NSWSC 28 Para 1

…The modern defence of mental impairment continues to be informed by these principles. As Johnson J said in R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 28 at [66] ( Fang ) (citing Attorney General of NSW v X [2013] NSWSC 1392 at [87]-[91):…
R v Konidaris
[2014] VSC 89 Para 1

…In R v Konidaris [2014] VSC 89, there was a dispute between the experts about whether, at the time of the incident, the accused had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or from a drug-induced psychosis. T Forrest J considered a statutory provision that codified the common law defence of insanity. The accus…
Attorney General of NSW v X
[2013] NSWSC 1392 Para 1

…ntinues to be informed by these principles. As Johnson J said in R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 28 at [66] ( Fang ) (citing Attorney General of NSW v X [2013] NSWSC 1392 at [87]-[91):…
R v RADFORD
[2013] SASCFC 73 Para 1

…al Law, notes that the definition of “mental illness” in s 7.3(9) adopts a common law formula derived from the judgment of King CJ in R v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266; 20 A Crim R 388 ( Radford ). In Radford , King CJ considered the relationship between involuntary conduct (resulting from non-insane automatism) and ins…
R v Doolan
[2010] NSWSC 147 Para 1

…In R v Doolan [2010] NSWSC 147, the accused had suffered a number of episodes of drug-induced psychosis that had made her vulnerable to further psychosis and caused an underlying condition independent of the effects of drug taking. In the period prior to when she killed the victim, the accused had been affected by…
R v Ham
[2009] NSWSC 296 Para 1

…mstances: at [73] (citing R v Meddings [1966] VR 306). Derbin was applied in R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751. A similar approach was taken in R v Ham [2009] NSWSC 296.…
R v Dargin
[2008] NSWSC 751 Para 1

…er the “trigger” was alcohol or a set of surrounding circumstances: at [73] (citing R v Meddings [1966] VR 306). Derbin was applied in R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751. A similar approach was taken in R v Ham [2009] NSWSC 296.…
R v Hadfield
[2007] NZCA 414 Para 1

…y were incapable of forming the requisite criminal intention, while the community should be protected from the risk of recurrent behaviour. Following R v Hadfield (1800) 27 St Tr 1281, legislation was introduced to provide community protection; it directed courts to order the indefinite detention in a gaol or asylum o…
R v Morrison
[2006] SASC 344 Para 1

…In R v Morrison [2006] SASC 344, Duggan J considered whether a non-psychotic mental illness such as depression could constitute an underlying mental impairment where a person experienced a drug-induced psychosis. At [78]–[81], his Honour said:…
R v Martin
[2005] VSC 518 Para 1

…Applying the common law as explained in Radford , in R v Martin (No 1 ) [2005] VSC 518; 159 A Crim R 314, Bongiorno J considered a statutory provision enacting the M’Naghten Rules . In that case, the accused’s delusional states were always preceded by the taking of cannabis and ceased when drug use ceased. His Ho…
R v Derbin
[2000] NSWCCA 361 Para 1

…In R v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361 ( Derbin ), the accused had experienced underlying schizophrenia for some years. On the night in question, he suffered an acute exacerbation of psychosis after consuming a cocktail of alcohol and drugs. The Court was satisfied that the defence of mental illness was made out, stating t…
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority
[1998] HCA 53 Para 1

…eflect the approach to statutory interpretation described by the majority in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 at [78].…
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority
[1998] HCA 28 Para 1

…se provisions reflect the approach to statutory interpretation described by the majority in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Commission [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 at [78].…
R v Barlow
[1997] HCA 19 Para 1

…In R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 at 32, Kirby J remarked that, in cases of ambiguity, the High Court ordinarily favours a statutory interpretation that achieves consistency both across Australian codes and between Australian jurisdictions and other common law jurisdictions. His Honour emphasised the desirability of a…
R v Falconer
[1990] HCA 49

…98] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355 R v Barlow (1997) 188 CLR 1 R v Dargin [2008] NSWSC 751 R v Derbin [2000] NSWCCA 361 R v Doolan [2010] NSWSC 147 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 28 R v Hadfield (1800) 27 St Tr 1281 R v Konidaris [2014] VSC 89 R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718 R v Martin (No 1) [2005]…
(1843) 8 ER 718
(1843) 8 ER 718

…SWSC 147 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 R v Fang (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 28 R v Hadfield (1800) 27 St Tr 1281 R v Konidaris [2014] VSC 89 R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718 R v Martin (No 1) [2005] VSC 518; 159 A Crim R 314 R v Morrison [2006] SASC 344 R v Ham [2009] NSWSC 296 R v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266; 20 A Crim R 38…
[1980] 1 SCR 1149
[1980] 1 SCR 1149 Para 1

…erson incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong”’. However, in Cooper v The Queen [1980] 1 SCR 1149 it had been decided that the defence did not apply to “self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs”. In Bouchard-Lebrun , the appellant had been incapab…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
15(5), 18(2), 20, 27, 28, 29, 30, 311, 4... 10 mentions (from Para 1)
Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)
137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 7 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
7.3(9) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
68B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA)
1 mention (from Para 1)