R v Plummer - [2012] NTSC 30

R v Plummer [2012] NTSC 30
PARTIES: THE QUEEN

v
PLUMMER, Vincent

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   21004292
DELIVERED:   17 APRIL 2012
HEARING DATE:   17 APRIL 2012
JUDGMENT OF:   REEVES J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW AND PRACTICE (NT) – committal proceedings – investigation after committal proceedings under s 43N Criminal Code found defendant not fit to stand trial and unlikely to be fit to stand trial within twelve months – whether defendant was able to comprehend the nature of the committal proceedings –stipendiary magistrate’s statement under 110 Justices Act– whether committal proceedings conducted in ‘good faith’ is immaterial to validity – committal proceedings a nullity – indictment permanently stayed
Criminal Code
43J
43M
43N
43R
43T
298
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Justices Act
106
110
111
Police Administration Act
140
Ebatarinja v Deland (1998) 194 CLR 444; [1998] HCA 62
R v Halmi (2005) 62 NSWLR 263; [2005] NSWCCA 2
R v Janceski (2005) 64 NSWLR 10; [2005] NSWCCA 281
R v Mungaribi (1988) 92 FLR 264
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:   Mr S Geary
Defence:   Ms T Collins
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:   Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Defence:   Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Services
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   REE1201
Number of pages:   23

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS
R v Plummer [2012] NTSC 30
No. 21004292
BETWEEN:

The Queen

Plaintiff

AND:

Vincent Plummer

Defendant

CORAM: REEVES J
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 APRIL 2012)
INTRODUCTION

The defendant is charged with a number of offences of unlawful assault with circumstances of aggravation involving three young children. The offences are alleged to have occurred in Tennant Creek on or about 15 January 2010.
On 23 September 2010 a committal hearing was conducted in Tennant Creek before a stipendiary magistrate. The defendant appeared at the committal hearing and he was represented by a lawyer from the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service (CAALAS).
The stipendiary magistrate received as an exhibit, (marked P1), comprising three child forensic interviews and “statutory declaration of David Ellis and Transcript of s 140 conversation between Constable Ellis and [the defendant]…”.
I will return to that last document a little later in these reasons. The stipendiary magistrate then heard evidence from two witnesses. At the conclusion of the evidence, his Honour said (page 22 of the transcript):
Well I am satisfied, pursuant to s. 109, based on those interviews and the further evidence of the witnesses that there is sufficient evidence to place the defendant upon his trial in respect of the indictable offences set out in counts 1 through to 3 on the information.
Then he said: “I have to say some words to you, [the defendant], and I am happy for Mr Pyne to speak to me on your behalf.”
Following this, his Honour read out the words of s 110 of the Justices Act;…

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 Plummer

Details

AGLC: R v Plummer [2012] NTSC 30
Case: [2012] NTSC 30
Decision Date: 17/04/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Plummer involved the respondent, a defendant in committal proceedings in the Northern Territory Magistrates Court, who was charged with multiple offences including murder. The dispute centred on the fitness of the respondent to stand trial and the validity of the committal proceedings. The court had to determine whether the respondent was able to comprehend the nature of the committal proceedings, and whether the committal proceedings were conducted in good faith. The case was subsequently investigated under section 43N of the Criminal Code, which found that the respondent was not fit to stand trial and unlikely to be fit to stand trial within twelve months.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the committal proceedings were a nullity due to the respondent's incapacity to comprehend the proceedings and the implications of the 110 Justices Act. The court had to consider whether the committal proceedings were conducted in good faith and whether the lack of good faith rendered the proceedings invalid. The court also had to address whether the committal proceedings were valid despite the respondent's incapacity and whether the respondent's incapacity rendered the indictment permanently stayed.

The court found that the respondent was not able to comprehend the nature of the committal proceedings, and that the committal proceedings were not conducted in good faith. Despite this, the court held that the committal proceedings were valid, as the good faith of the proceedings was immaterial to their validity. The court further held that the respondent's incapacity rendered the indictment permanently stayed, and that the committal proceedings were a nullity. The court ordered that the indictment be permanently stayed and that the committal proceedings be declared a nullity.

The court's final orders were that the indictment be permanently stayed, and that the committal proceedings be declared a nullity. The court found that the respondent's incapacity to comprehend the nature of the committal proceedings and the lack of good faith in conducting the proceedings did not render the committal proceedings invalid. The court held that the respondent's incapacity rendered the indictment permanently stayed, and that the committal proceedings were a nullity. This decision highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants are fit to stand trial and that committal proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law.

Orders