R v PHILLIPS - [2013] SADC 164

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v PHILLIPS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 164
Reasons for the Order of His Honour Judge Soulio
6 December 2013
CRIMINAL LAW
Defendant charged with aggravated robbery and a series of other offences – investigation into fitness to stand trial – decided that in each case the defendant was not fit to stand trial – objective elements established beyond reasonable doubt – declared liable to supervision – limiting term of six years, two months and two weeks – defendant to be detained.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 137, Part 8A, referred to.
R v Draoui (2008) 101 SASR 267, considered.

R v PHILLIPS
[2013] SADC 164
Introduction

The defendant is charged with a series of offences, the principal offence being one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (‘CLCA’) said to have been committed on 29 June 2012 at Torrensville.
Circumstances of the Offending
Aggravated robbery
On 29 June 2012 at about 10.45am, the defendant ran towards a woman, snatched her handbag out of her hand and continued running. He was pursued by members of the public and eventually detained until police arrived. Police located the complainant’s phone on the defendant. The circumstance of aggravation was that the defendant committed the offence knowing the complainant was over the age of 60 years.
Other Offending
During the course of proceedings, I was informed that the defendant had also been charged with a series of offences being dealt with in the Magistrates Court, which, by consent, were dealt with in this Court. I outline those charges chronologically as follows:
Assault causing harm
On 13 August 2011 an employee of the Margaret Tobin Centre responded to a duress alarm activated by a nurse after the defendant had begun making verbal and gestured threats of violence towards staff. The complainant advised the defendant that he would be placed in seclusion. The defendant struck the complainant to the face.
Assault causing harm
On 28 October 2011 the defendant assaulted a security officer working at the Colonnades Tavern by poking his thumbs into the complainant’s eye sockets, and then punching him. The complainant suffered a cut to the eye and sprained fingers.
Disorderly behaviour and resist police
Later the same day police located the defendant in the vicinity of the Noarlunga Library car park. As police approached, the defendant began yelling profanities. The defendant resisted attempts by police to handcuff him.
Aggravated assault
On 19 March 2012 the defendant approached a man at the Mile End Foodland car park and asked for money and cigarettes. The complainant refused to comply and turned to walk away. The defendant then pushed the complainant in the back and caused him to fall to the ground. The complainant suffered soreness to his head and right hand.
Property damage
On 28 June 2012 the defendant entered the offices of Maxima Job Link and asked for help to obtain a job. He was…

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 PHILLIPS

Details

AGLC: R v Phillips [2013] SADC 164
Case: [2013] SADC 164
Decision Date: 6 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Phillips, the defendant was charged with aggravated robbery and a series of other offences. The court was tasked with determining the defendant's fitness to stand trial, a question that arose due to the defendant's mental state. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of a certain jurisdiction.

The court was required to decide whether the defendant was fit to stand trial and, if not, whether the objective elements of the offences had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The primary legal issue was whether the defendant's mental state rendered him unfit to participate in the trial process, and if so, what the appropriate legal consequences would be.

The court found that the objective elements of the offences had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Given the defendant's unfitness to stand trial, the court declared the defendant liable to supervision, setting a limiting term of six years, two months, and two weeks. The defendant was to be detained during this period. The court's decision reflected a balance between the need for justice and the defendant's mental health needs.

Orders