R v Singsathitsuk - [2021] ACTSC 26

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Andison
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 32
Hearing Date:	26 February 2021
Decision Date:	26 February 2021
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See [26]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Pre-trial hearing – determination of mental impairment – referral to ACAT
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 300, 321, 323(3)(b), 324 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28, 404(1) Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	R v Singsathitsuk [2021] ACTSC 26
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Daniel James Andison (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel
S Jerome (Crown) H Hayunga (Accused)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
ACT Legal Aid (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 158 of 2019
ELKAIM J:

1.       The accused, Mr Daniel Andison, was arraigned before me this morning. He pleaded not guilty by reason of mental impairment to the offence of causing damage by fire to a building, [redacted], intending to cause, or being reckless about causing damage to that building (s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)).
2.       The matter essentially proceeded by way of documentary evidence, included in both Exhibits A, B and 1.
3. The relevant legislation is to be found in Part 2.3 of the Criminal Code 2002. Section 27
contains the relevant definitions of “mental impairment” and “mental illness”. Section 28
is as follows:
28       Mental impairment and criminal responsibility
(1)       A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, when carrying out the conduct required for the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had
the effect that—

(a) the person did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b) the person did not know that the conduct was wrong; or
(c) the person could not control the conduct.
(2)       For subsection (1) (b), a person does not know that conduct is wrong if the person cannot reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as seen by a reasonable person, is wrong.

(3) The question whether a person was suffering from a mental impairment is a question of
fact.
(4) A person is presumed not to have been suffering from a mental impairment.
(5) The presumption is displaced only if it is proved on the balance of probabilities (by the
prosecution or defence) that the person was suffering from a mental impairment.
(6) The prosecution may rely on this section only if the court gives leave.
(7) If the trier of fact is satisfied that a person is not criminally responsible for an offence
only because of mental impairment, it must—

(a) for an offence dealt with before the Supreme Court—return or enter a special
verdict that the person is not guilty of the offence because of mental impairment;
or

(b) for any other offence—find the person not guilty of the offence because of mental
impairment.

4. The next relevant legislation is s 321 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which states:

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 Singsathitsuk

Details

AGLC: R v Singsathitsuk [2021] ACTSC 26
Case: [2021] ACTSC 26
Decision Date: 26 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Singsathitsuk involved the defendant, Singsathitsuk, who was charged with a serious criminal offence. The proceedings took place in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was required to determine the mental competency of the accused to stand trial. The court was presented with evidence and expert opinions regarding Singsathitsuk's mental state, which raised questions about his capacity to participate in his defence. The critical issue was whether Singsathitsuk was mentally impaired to the extent that he could not understand the proceedings or assist in his defence.

The court was tasked with deciding whether Singsathitsuk was mentally fit to proceed to trial. This required a careful examination of the medical evidence and expert assessments presented. The primary legal issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to warrant a referral to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a more detailed assessment under the Mental Health Act. The court needed to balance the defendant's rights and the need for a fair trial against the potential risks of allowing a mentally impaired individual to stand trial.

In its decision, the court concluded that there was enough evidence to suggest that Singsathitsuk might be mentally impaired. The evidence included assessments by medical professionals and observations of the defendant's behaviour during the proceedings. The court found that the defendant's mental state was such that it would likely impede his ability to understand the charges, participate in his defence, or follow the trial. Therefore, the court ordered that Singsathitsuk be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a comprehensive mental health evaluation. This referral was made to ensure that the defendant's rights were protected and that a fair trial could be conducted if possible.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [26]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.