R v Sharples - [2022] SADC 3

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SHARPLES
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 3
Reasons for Decision of his Honour Judge Stretton (ex tempore)
10 December 2021
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY AND MENTAL IMPAIRMENT
The accused was charged with false imprisonment and assault, arising out of a series of events occurring on or about 30 October 2020. The accused elected for trial by judge alone.
The accused pled not guilty on the basis that at the time he was mentally incompetent to commit the crime.
The facts are not in dispute. The agreed evidence establishes the objective elements of the offences charged. The agreed evidence reflects a bizarre and irrational course of conduct by the accused at all relevant times.
Expert psychiatric evidence assessed the accused as unlikely to have been aware of the wrongfulness of his actions at the time.
Held:
1. The objective elements of the offences are proven beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The accused was at the time of his actions mentally incompetent to commit the crime and accordingly, is not guilty.
3. The accused will be subject to supervision pursuant to Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269D, s 269FB(3), Part 8A, referred to.

R v SHARPLES
[2022] SADC 3

The accused, Steven Karl Sharples, is charged on Information with false imprisonment, two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of common assault.
The charges arise from events occurring on or about the 30th of October 2020, when, after a messaging exchange, the alleged victim in this matter attended the accused's premises at Wingfield, ostensibly pursuant to an agreement to purchase cocaine from the accused. It is alleged that the offences then took place. There followed a bizarre series of events. No drugs or drug paraphernalia were present, but some red material, referred to by the accused as “cocaine that was drying out” was there. Then followed erratic and irrational behaviour on the part of the accused, over a course of four to five hours, giving rise to the charges before the court.
The accused has pled not guilty on the basis he was at the time mentally incompetent to commit the offence.
The accused bears the onus of displacing the presumption of mental competence to commit offences and bears that onus pursuant to s 269D of the Criminal Consolidation Act, 1935 (the Act). It is agreed between counsel that the court proceed to determine his mental competence to commit the act and if adjudged not competent then embark on a trial of the objective elements of the offence.
Trial of the accused’s mental competence
The facts in the prosecution brief were agreed, as also conveniently summarised in the prosecution's case statement and in the report of forensic psychiatrist Dr Craig Raeside. There are also agreed facts set out in the prosecution's outline of submissions dated 8 December 2021. The defence submits that the Court find the accused mentally incompetent to have committed the alleged crimes.
The accused's behaviour on the day in question was undoubtedly bizarre.
I will briefly outline the undisputed evidence.
Shortly prior to the 30^th of October 2020 there was messaging between the victim and the accused over an encrypted message service. An agreement was reached to the effect that the victim would purchase two grams of cocaine from the accused. They arranged to meet at the accused's warehouse at Cox Street, Wingfield, the following evening. Pursuant to the agreement, the victim attended some time shortly after 9.30 p.m. Upon meeting, the accused told the victim the drugs were not ready yet, and for some reason took the complainant for a drive to see a vehicle in a scrap yard. The accused drove erratically and dangerously in the course of that journey.
When the two returned to the warehouse, the accused showed the victim a reddish substance on a silver barbecue tray, telling him that it was cocaine but that it was ‘still drying out’. It was an unrelated, non-illicit substance.
In light of the colour of the material, and the events to date, the victim began to become suspicious. The accused's behaviour became increasingly erratic, he initiating conversation that veered off onto a number of topics. The topics included the accused suddenly alleging that the complainant was an undercover police officer.
Apropos of nothing, the accused told the victim to get on his knees and “start praying”, which the victim did, fearing for his safety. The accused demanded the victim lie on his stomach with his hands behind his back, and cable-tied the victim around one of his wrists, and then used a cord to tie his hands together. He tied the victim’s legs together. There is no observably rational basis for such actions.
The accused then went through the complainant's wallets and other personal items, questioning him randomly about those items. He accused him of being a police officer; he accused him of being sent to the warehouse to kill him; he accused him of being a member of three separate named outlaw motorcycle gangs.
Over some four hours, the victim remained tied up, receiving bizarre and inconsistent instructions from the accused over time. The accused rambled between a number of topics, for example accusing the victim of cheating on one of the accused's wives. There is no observably rational basis for any of that conduct.
While the victim was tied, the accused started assaulting him. Again, for no apparent reason. He whipped the victim with a cord, in circumstances comprising the allegations of count 2, the alleged aggravated assault. He then used a large tube to hit the complainant across his lower back, those facts comprising the allegations making up count 3, a further aggravated assault. He kicked the complainant's ribs numerous times, those facts making up count 4; and punched the complainant to the back of his head. On the evidence, there is no apparent rationale or rational purpose for any of that conduct.
At other times during the course of this activity the accused told the victim that he, the accused, was a police officer, and had to take the victim's DNA. The accused swabbed the victim’s ear for about five minutes, and then swabbed his mouth. A little later, the accused poured milk over the complainant, saying he was going to ‘waterboard’ him.
After several hours, the accused cut the cords binding the victim, asked the victim to call a particular phone number and speak to a female called Taylor. The accused then directed the victim to call Taylor a 'cheating whore' and hang up. The accused accused the victim of ‘cheating’ with one of the accused's wives, and variously, over a period of time, slapped the victim to the face, grabbed his chair and pulled it causing him to fall backwards onto the floor, then stamped on the victim's stomach and chest and kicked him. Those allegations comprise count 5 of assault.
Eventually, the accused told the victim he could leave, but that the victim needed to leave his belongings. The accused told the victim to take off his clothes. The victim complied. The accused took the clothes and threw them over a neighbouring fence. At that point the accused had taken a few steps outside of the warehouse, and so the victim seized that opportunity to shut the warehouse door and lock the accused outside. The victim was then able to call police. That was at 3.18 a.m., some five hours after his first attendance.
Police soon attended the warehouse. In their view, the accused was speaking in a delusional and paranoid manner. His presentation was captured on police body-cam video. Comments made by the accused included that the victim was a trespasser. The accused said he, the accused, was trying to break into the property with a screwdriver, because the victim had been trying to kill himself. He claimed the victim was trying to cook drugs inside the warehouse, that the victim was a lunatic who had lost the plot, and that the victim had a gun.
The accused also told police that he knew the Hell’s Angels, and that he was ‘well above’ the SA Police force. The accused said he was going to sell cocaine in the city to the Hell’s Angels and have an ‘orgy’ at his own warehouse, and then returned to the topic of his own ‘several wives’.
The accused’s ramblings continued in that ilk, and included alleging that his warehouse was a chapel, and that the accused was going to register a religion.
The accused was psychiatrically assessed by Dr Craig Raeside. The court has by consent received his report dated 12 August 2021. Dr Raeside is a qualified and experienced forensic psychiatrist, whose expertise the court accepts. Dr Raeside had treated the accused, initially interviewing him on the 6th of November 2020, a week after the alleged offending. Dr Raeside reviewed the accused for the purposes of forensic psychiatric assessment on 11 August 2021. Dr Raeside has also had regard to the Information, the prosecution case statement and associated statements, and other materials.
Dr Raeside also had access to the accused's clinical notes over the past decade, noting his first psychiatric admission to hospital was in 2010, with a further admission in 2013 with a diagnosed manic episode of bipolar disorder. He noted that the accused had been under the treatment of the Western Community Mental Health service for some decades.
Of particular relevance, Dr Raeside noted an admission to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital in April 2018, with a diagnosed manic relapse of bipolar disorder.
Dr Raeside sets out in some detail the accused's personal, psychiatric and drug-related history, and analyses his conduct on the day in question.
In all, Dr Raeside's examination and review of the accused is comprehensive and has the advantage of access to his psychiatric history as well as his current presentation. Dr Raeside concluded;
'In summary, Mr Sharples is a 39-year-old man who appears to have had a generally unremarkable childhood and adolescence, until a motor vehicle accident in his late teens, and a subsequent "change". Nevertheless, he did not come to psychiatric attention until just over 10 years ago, in his late 20s, at which time he appears to have had the first of a number of manic episodes, consistent with Bipolar Disorder.
This seems to have been precipitated by significant psychosocial stressors, not the least of which was the death of his mother, with whom he was very close. There also appears to have been some past substance abuse and alcohol abuse. He appears to have responded well to antipsychotic and mood-stabilising medication, but had disengaged from treatment for periods of time, most recently from about 2014 until 2018, when he had a further admission. He then disengaged again, until his current treatment in custody following his arrest.
Based on the information available to me, and from my interview with Mr Sharples, I would concur with a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder with past manic episodes. There is considerable information, including my own assessment of him within a week of his arrest, to suggest that he was experiencing a manic episode at the time of the alleged offending. He displayed odd and unusual behaviour, seemingly with elevated mood, paranoid and religious delusions, and no clear indication that he was intoxicated with illicit drugs at the time.
Notwithstanding the issues about cocaine, police found no evidence of any such drugs on his possession or at his property. The history I obtained does not suggest a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.[1]
It is possible that earlier, when he first came to psychiatric attention, the grandiosity associated with his manic episodes might have had some similarities,[2] but there is no indication of personal disturbance arising in his childhood.
In my view, the nature of the alleged offending, the descriptions of Mr Sharples by the victim and police, and my own observations, together with a past history of manic episodes and an established diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder, all suggest strongly that Mr Sharples was experiencing a manic relapse of Bipolar Disorder at the time of the alleged offending. There is no evidence of him being intoxicated with illicit drugs at that time.
Although it appears that Mr Sharples knew the nature and quality of his actions, this appeared to have been significantly impaired by his distorted reasoning caused by his manic episode. Although he appears to have known the nature and function of police, and superficially the aspect of some wrongfulness of what he was alleged to have done, I believe that the weight of his mental impairment would have rendered him unable to know the wrongfulness of his alleged offending. There is no indication that he was totally unable to control this conduct, but there does appear to have been a degree of disinhibited anger associated with his paranoid and grandiose delusions.'
[1] That had been part of an earlier diagnosis.
[2] To a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Both counsel submitted that the evidence supported a conclusion that the accused was mentally incompetent at the time of the alleged offending.
On the basis of the facts in this matter, which I have set out in some detail, and the opinion of Dr Raeside, which I accept, I find that the accused, Mr Sharples, was, in a legal sense, mentally incompetent to commit the offences the subject of the Information as he was unable to know the wrongfulness of his conduct.
I now move on to conduct a trial of the objective elements of the matter.
Trial of the Objective Elements of the Offence
The accused is charged with five offences.
Count 1, that the accused on 30 or 31 October 2020 at Wingfield, unlawfully imprisoned Kyle Shane Alan McAlley and detained him against his will.
Count 2, that the accused on 30 or 31 October at Wingfield committed an aggravated assault on Kyle Shane Alan McAlley, the offence being aggravated by the use of an offensive weapon, namely a cord.
Count 3, that the accused on 30 or 31 October 2020 at Wingfield committed an aggravated assault on Kyle Shane Alan McAlley, the offence being aggravated by the use of an offensive weapon in the form of a pole.
Count 4, that the accused on 30 or 31 October 2020 at Wingfield assaulted Kyle Shane Alan McAlley.
Count 5, that the accused on 30 or 31 October 2020 at Wingfield assaulted Kyle Shane Alan McAlley.
The facts are agreed. They are set out in the prosecution declarations, in the prosecution case statement, and by way of formal agreed facts set out in the prosecution outline dated 8 December 2021. I briefly summarise the facts relating to each count. I find the following facts proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In relation to count 1, in the course of the accused interacting with the victim on 30 October over a prospective purchase of cocaine by the victim, the accused demanded the victim get on his knees and start praying and stood in the doorway blocking the victim from leaving. The accused then tied the victim up and placed him on the ground. He could not move. He remained trapped in that position for several hours.
I have regard to the elements of the crime of false imprisonment. I find that there was no legal basis to imprison or restrain the victim and find that the victim was imprisoned and restrained unlawfully and falsely, and accordingly that the objective elements of count 1, unlawful imprisonment are made out.
It is agreed that whilst in that prone position, the accused took a cord and whipped the victim with it. I have regard to the elements of aggravated assault, and I find that the accused deliberately and unlawfully applied force to the victim without the victim’s consent, comprising the objective elements of an assault. I also find that he used a cord as an offensive weapon to commit the assault, thereby establishing circumstances of aggravation. I find beyond reasonable doubt the objective elements of count 2, aggravated assault.
In that same position, the accused struck the victim with a pole. That was a deliberate and unlawful application of force without the victim’s consent in circumstances comprising the objective elements of an assault. I find the accused used a pole as an offensive weapon, thereby establishing the circumstances of aggravation. I find beyond reasonable doubt the objective elements of count 3, aggravated assault.
I find that while the victim was on the ground in that position, the accused kicked him several times in the ribs and punched him to the back of the head. That was a deliberate and unlawful application of force without consent, comprising the objective elements of assault. I find beyond reasonable doubt the objective elements of count 4, assault.
I find that whilst the victim was sitting on a chair, subsequent to being untied, the accused slapped him several times across the face with an open hand. That was a deliberate and unlawful application of force without consent, and I find proven beyond reasonable doubt the objective elements of count 5, assault.
I find all of those matters proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly I find the objective elements of each of the offences set out in the Information established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
Having found the objective elements of each offence proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that the accused was, for the reasons given, mentally incompetent at the time of performing the acts comprising those crimes, pursuant to s 269FB(3) of the Act, I find Kevin Karl Sharples not guilty of the offences of false imprisonment, aggravated assault and basic assault but liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act.