R v Smith

Case [2012] ACTSC 146

THE QUEEN v MURRAY CAMERON SMITH
[2012] ACTSC 146 (24 August 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – Special verdict – Not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 321 – Disposition under Crimes Act s 323.
CRIMINAL LAW – Words and phrases – Meaning of “violence” – Whether arson an offence of “violence” – Where no likely risk of harm to other persons.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 27(3), 27(4), 300, 321, 323, 428O
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 28, 404(1)
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 190
Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT), ss 28, 41
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68B

Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 3A

Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1994 (ACT)

Antonelli v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1998] 1 All ER 997
Arulthilakan v The Queen (2003) 78 ALJR 257;
R v Ardler (2004) 144 A Crim R 552
R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441;
R v Butcher [1986] VR 43,
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; ex parte Clowes [1977] 1 WLR 1353
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, ex parte Warner [1985] 2 All ER 1069
R v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; ex parte Warner [1986] 2 All ER 478
R v Fisher (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 100
R v Galas (No 2) [2006] VSC 160
R v Goodwin (2009) 233 FLR 473
R v Houston (1995) 5 Tas R 210,
R v McCrossen [1991] Tas R 1,
R v Steurer [2008] ACTSC 141
Sodeman v The King (1936) 55 CLR 192

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 294 of 2011

Judge:             Refshauge ACJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              24 August 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 294 of 2011                
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R

v

MURRAY SMITH

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge ACJ
Date:  24 August 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

  1. Mr Smith is not guilty of arson, by reason of mental impairment. 

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. Mr Smith submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable that tribunal to make recommendations to this Court as to how he should be dealt with.

  1. When the recommendations are received from ACAT, a copy be provided to the parties and that the matter be re-listed for directions at a time suitable to the parties.

  1. The proceedings are adjourned generally, with liberty by either party to apply.

  1. On 4 March 2011, the house in which the accused, Murray Cameron Smith, was then living was seen to be on fire and the ACT Fire Brigade attended. Mr Smith was behaving in a bizarre manner at the time and was arrested by police who attended. He admitted to police that he had started the fire. He was charged with arson under s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

  1. On 4 March 2011, after his arrest, Mr Smith was referred to ACT Mental Health and detained involuntarily under s…

Continue reading R v Smith

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146
Case
[2012] ACTSC 146
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involved the respondent, Smith, who was charged with arson under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 321. Smith was found not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The court was required to consider the meaning of "violence" in the context of the offence of arson and whether it constituted an offence of "violence" when there was no likely risk of harm to other persons. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate disposition for Smith under the Crimes Act s 323.

The court considered the definition of "violence" in the context of the offence of arson and whether it included instances where there was no likely risk of harm to other persons. The court concluded that the term "violence" in the context of the offence of arson should be interpreted in a way that includes instances where there is no likely risk of harm to other persons. The court also considered the appropriate disposition for Smith under the Crimes Act s 323, taking into account his not guilty by reason of mental impairment verdict. The court ordered that Smith be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable that tribunal to make recommendations to the court as to how he should be dealt with.

In conclusion, the court found that the term "violence" in the context of the offence of arson should be interpreted in a way that includes instances where there is no likely risk of harm to other persons. The court also ordered that Smith be submitted to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable that tribunal to make recommendations to the court as to how he should be dealt with. The court's decision provides clarity on the interpretation of the term "violence" in the context of the offence of arson and sets out the appropriate disposition for individuals found not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

Orders

Orders of the court

2.

Mr Smith submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal to enable that tribunal to make recommendations to this Court as to how he should be dealt with.

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.