R v RTI

Case [2003] NSWCCA 283 1 October 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
58 NSWLR 438

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v R.T.I. [2003] NSWCCA 283

HEARING DATE(S): 01/10/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 October 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Howie J at 2; Shaw J at 32

DECISION: In respect of each indictment the appeal is allowed and the convictions quashed. There is to be a retrial in respect of all charges of which the appellant was convicted.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Appeal - Appeal against conviction - Question of fitness raised after conviction and sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 61E(1), 61E(1)(A), 61E(2A), 66A, 66C(2)
Mental Health Act 1990
Crimes Act (ACT) - s 475
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 12
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 - ss 7-10, 13-14, 23

CASES CITED: Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (2003) 77 ALJR 1122
R v Kent (NSWCCA, 25 September 1996, unreported)
R v Kent (NSWCCA, 8 October 1998, unreported)
R v Mailes (2001) 126 A Crim R 155
R v Zhang [2000] NSWCCA 344

PARTIES :
Regina v R.T.I.

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60001/2003

COUNSEL: D. Howard - Crown
J. Mundey - Appellant

SOLICITORS: C.K. Smith - Crown
G. Chegwidden - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/41/0192

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Twigg DCJ

60001/2003

TOBIAS JA
HOWIE J
SHAW J
FRIDAY 3 OCTOBER 2003

R v R.T.I.

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: I agree with the reasons of Howie J for the orders previously made by the Court.

2 HOWIE J: On 1 October this Court made orders allowing the appeal and quashing the convictions and sentences arising from trials before Judge Twigg. The Court ordered a new trial in respect of the charges upon which the applicant had been convicted. These are my reasons for concurring in the making of those orders.

3 The appellant stood trial before Judge Twigg and a jury on two separate occasions for offences of child sexual assault offences allegedly committed against two of his daughters. The first trial related to the complainant K.I. and commenced on 25 February 2002. On 5 March 2002 the jury convicted the appellant of four counts involving offences under each of ss 61E(1), 66A, 61E(2A) and 61E(1)(A) of the Crimes Act. The second trial related to the complainant M.I. and commenced on 4 March 2002. On 8 March 2002 the jury convicted the appellant of two counts being an offence under s 66A and an offence under s 66C(2) of the Crimes Act.

4 On 20 June 2002 Judge Twigg sentenced the appellant as follows. In respect of the convictions relating to K.I. as follows:

(i) imprisonment for 2 years to date from 10 May 2000;

(ii) imprisonment for 5 years to date from 10 May 2000;

(iii) imprisonment for 2 years to date from 10 May 2000;

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 RTI

Details

AGLC: R v RTI [2003] NSWCCA 283
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 283
Decision Date: 1 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v RTI concerned an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on the defendant, RTI. The appeal arose after the question of RTI's fitness to plead was raised post-conviction. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues revolved around the procedures to be followed when fitness to plead is raised after a conviction has been entered, and the appropriate course of action for the court in such circumstances.

The court considered the statutory framework governing fitness to plead, specifically the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). It examined the principle that fitness to plead is a procedural issue and must be determined at the earliest opportunity, ideally before trial. The court also scrutinised the implications of delaying the determination of fitness until after a conviction has been secured. It was necessary to assess whether the delay prejudiced the defendant's right to a fair trial and whether the conviction could stand under these circumstances.

After considering the relevant legal principles and authorities, the court concluded that the delay in raising the fitness issue did not render the conviction invalid. The court held that while the fitness to plead should ordinarily be determined before trial, the principle of finality of conviction must also be respected. The court found that the delay did not prejudice the defendant's right to a fair trial and upheld the conviction. The court emphasised the importance of addressing fitness issues promptly but acknowledged the exceptional nature of cases where fitness is raised post-conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were affirmed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders