R v Riddell - [2003] NSWCCA 251

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v. RIDDELL [2003] NSWCCA 251

FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 60171/03

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 9 September 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 09/09/2003

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
RIDDELL, Bruce

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J Greg James J Bergin J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/51/0208

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson, DCJ.

COUNSEL:
Crown: E. Wilkins
App: In person

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S.E. O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - appeal - s.5 of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness - availability of appeal - "raising" of mental illness defence - availability of appeal - effect of s.7(4) of Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - consequence if appellant found mentally ill on appeal.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60171/03
HIDDEN, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
BERGIN, J.
TUESDAY 9 SEPTEMBER 2003

REGINA v. BRUCE RIDDELL

Judgment

GREG JAMES, J: Mr. Bruce Riddell seeks to appeal pursuant to s.5 of the Criminal Appeal Act (1912) against a special verdict under s.38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act (1990) made at trial against him. Section 5(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act provides:-
“For the purposes of this Act the person acquitted on the ground of mental illness, when mental illness was not set up as a defence by the person, shall be deemed to be a person convicted, and any order to keep the person in custody shall be deemed to be a sentence.”
More generally, s.5 provides the right of appeal to this court as available subject to certain exceptions not here relevant, only in the case of a person convicted on indictment or sentenced.
Section 38 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act (1990) provides:-
“If, in an indictment or information, an act or omission is charged against a person as an offence and it is given in evidence on the trial of the person for the offence that the person was mentally ill, so as not to be responsible, according to law, for his or her action at the time when the act was done or omission made, then, if it appears to the jury before which the person is tried that the person did the act or made the omission charged, but was mentally ill at the time when the person did or made the same, the jury must return a special verdict that the accused person is not guilty by reason of mental illness.”
Such a verdict has the consequence that by virtue of s.39 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act (1990) the court must order that the person be detained in such place and in such manner as the court thinks fit until released by due process of law.
In the present case Mr. Riddell was not tried by jury in consequence of a consent having been given for a judge only trial…

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 Riddell

Details

AGLC: R v Riddell [2003] NSWCCA 251
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 251
Decision Date: 9 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by a defendant who had been found guilty of an offence by a jury but was later determined to be not guilty by reason of mental illness, pursuant to section 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The defendant sought to challenge the decision of the trial judge, arguing that the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness should not have been returned and that the court should have allowed an appeal. The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had properly raised the defence of mental illness and, if so, whether the defendant was entitled to appeal the verdict.

The court found that the defendant had indeed raised the issue of mental illness in the trial court, thereby satisfying the requirements for the special verdict. The court also considered the effect of section 7(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which stipulates that if the appeal court finds the appellant to be mentally ill, the appellant must be detained in a psychiatric institution. The court concluded that the appeal was validly taken and that the appeal process should proceed to determine whether the defendant was indeed mentally ill at the time of the offence.

The court held that the appeal was properly before it and that the defendant was entitled to have the matter determined by the appeal court. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in returning the special verdict and that the appeal did not provide grounds for altering the verdict. The court further found that, if the appeal were to succeed, the consequences outlined in section 7(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 would apply.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the defendant was to remain subject to the special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness. If the defendant were found to be mentally ill on appeal, the defendant would be detained in a psychiatric institution in accordance with the provisions of section 7(4) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

Orders