R v Peter Graham Morris - [2002] ACTSC 12

R v PETER GRAHAM MORRIS [2002] ACTSC 12 (15 March 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – accused found unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit within twelve months of determination – special hearing in relation to the accused – whether reference to “acts which constitute the offence charged” requires proof of mens rea.
CRIMINAL LAW – application for stay of proceedings – effect of finding that accused unfit to plead and unlikely to become fit to plead within twelve months – whether legislative intention for special hearings to be conducted despite unfairness due to mentally impaired person having limited understanding of proceedings – public interest in ensuring that charges of sexually assaulting a child proceed to such a hearing.

Crimes Act 1900, s 315, s 12
Guardianship and Management of Property Act 1991
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 269MB

R v T (1999) 75 SASR 235

Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476

R v Miller [1983] 2 AC 161

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292

Jago v District Court of New South Wales (1989) 168 CLR
Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75
R vDavis (1995) 57 FCR 512

No. SCC 58 of 2001

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 15 March 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 58 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN

v

PETER GRAHAM MORRIS

REASONS FOR ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  15 March 2002
Place:  Canberra

On 28 February 2002, I dismissed an application for a stay of proceedings in relation to an indictment charging the applicant with a number of sexual offences allegedly committed upon or in relation to a young person under sixteen years of age. I now provide reasons for that decision.

On 14 August 2001 an indictment was filed charging the applicant with the following offences:

(a)between 1 October 1998 and 31 December 1998 committing an act of indecency upon the complainant who was then eleven years old; and
(b)between 1 August 1999 and 31 December 1999 committing a further act of indecency upon the complainant who was then twelve years old;
(c)between 1 January 2000 and 31 April 2000 engaging in sexual intercourse with the complainant who was then twelve years old; and
(d)between 1 August 2000 and 12 October 2000 committing a still further act of indecency upon the complainant who was then thirteen years old.

The notice of motion giving rise to the present application was filed on 28 September 2001 and was listed for hearing before me on 25 October 2001. However, during the course of argument I formed the opinion that a serious question had arisen as to whether the applicant was fit to plead to the offences with which he had been charged and I ordered that he submit himself to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to determine that issue.

On 17 December 2001 the Tribunal determined that the applicant was not…

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 Peter Graham Morris

Details

AGLC: R v Peter Graham Morris [2002] ACTSC 12
Case: [2002] ACTSC 12
Decision Date: 15 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peter Graham Morris involved a criminal proceeding against the accused, Peter Graham Morris, who was found unfit to plead due to significant mental impairments and was deemed unlikely to become fit to plead within twelve months of the determination. The matter was heard by a court, which was required to consider the legal implications of the accused's unfitness and the potential for a special hearing. The primary issue before the court was whether the phrase "acts which constitute the offence charged" in the relevant legislation necessitated proof of mens rea when determining whether a special hearing should proceed. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the legislative intention permitted special hearings to be conducted despite the acknowledged unfairness to the mentally impaired individual due to their limited understanding of the proceedings. The court also weighed the public interest in ensuring that charges of sexually assaulting a child were brought before a special hearing.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the statutory language and the legislative intent behind the special hearing provisions. It determined that the phrase "acts which constitute the offence charged" did not require proof of mens rea, as the primary focus was on the physical acts rather than the mental state of the accused. Furthermore, the court concluded that the legislative intention allowed for special hearings to proceed, even though they might be unfair to the mentally impaired individual. The court also found that the public interest in prosecuting serious charges, such as those related to the sexual assault of a child, justified the continuation of the proceedings through a special hearing. Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

In light of the court's findings, it ruled that the special hearing should proceed, despite the accused's unfitness to plead and the likelihood that he would remain unfit within the prescribed timeframe. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the broader societal interest in addressing serious criminal allegations. The final orders of the court mandated that the special hearing concerning the charges against Peter Graham Morris should continue, ensuring that the process adhered to the statutory requirements and legislative intent.

Orders