R v Smith - [1999] NSWCCA 126

CITATION: R v Smith [1999] NSWCCA 126

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60723/97

HEARING DATE(S): 20 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 June 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Paul Thomas Smith

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Barr J at 68; Carruthers AJ at 69

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 93/31/0527

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Twigg DCJ

COUNSEL: RD Ellis (Crown)
GP Craddock (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
T A Murphy (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - unfit to be tried - special hearing - decisions about conduct of defence.

ACTS CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act
Mental Health Act 1990

DECISION: Extension of time to appeal granted - appeal against conviction dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60723/97

JAMES J
BARR J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Friday 12 June 1999

REGINA v Paul Thomas SMITH
JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: This is an application brought by Paul Thomas Smith (“the appellant”) for an extension of time in which to appeal and, if an extension of time is granted, an appeal by him against verdicts, which were given at a special hearing held in December 1995 under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act (“the Act”) before his Honour Judge Twigg and a jury in the District Court, that on the limited evidence available at the special hearing the appellant had committed the offences charged, being two offences of aggravated sexual assault under s61J of the Crimes Act , committed on the same date 20 July 1993 against the same adult female complainant. The circumstances of aggravation on the first charge were that the appellant had maliciously inflicted actual bodily harm on the complainant. The circumstances of aggravation on the second charge were that the offence had been committed in company.

2 On 3 May 1994 another District Court judge, sitting alone without a jury, had found that the appellant was unfit to be tried on the charges of aggravated sexual assault. On 8 August 1994 the Mental Health Review Tribunal made a determination that the appellant would not become fit to be tried during the period of twelve months after 3 May 1994. Subsequently the Attorney General, acting under s18 of the Act, had directed that a special hearing be conducted. It was pursuant to this direction that the hearing before Judge Twigg took place.

3 The verdicts that on the limited evidence available the appellant had committed the offences charged were given in accordance with s22(1)(c) of the Act. An appeal lies to this Court from these verdicts by virtue of s22(3)(c) of the Act and the extended definition of the term “conviction” in s2 of the Criminal Appeal Act.

4 After the jury had returned their verdicts Judge Twigg on 22 February 1996 held that, if the special hearing had been an ordinary trial, the sentence he would have imposed on the first charge would have been a fixed term of penal servitude for one year from 20 July 1993 and the sentence he would have…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [1999] NSWCCA 126
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 126
Decision Date: 11 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Smith, the defendant was charged with several serious criminal offences, including aggravated burglary and assault causing actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue was the defendant's fitness to be tried. The defendant's mental health was in question, raising concerns about his ability to understand the proceedings and participate in his defence. The court was required to determine whether the defendant was fit to stand trial and, if not, what alternative measures could be taken under the relevant legislative provisions.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting and applying sections of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic). Specifically, the court had to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that the defendant was unfit to be tried. If the defendant was deemed unfit, the court would also need to decide on the appropriate course of action, including whether a special hearing should be conducted and who should be responsible for managing the defendant's defence during that hearing.

The court found that the evidence presented indicated the defendant was indeed unfit to be tried due to significant mental health issues. The judge acknowledged the importance of protecting the rights of the defendant while ensuring the judicial process was not unduly delayed. The court ordered a special hearing to be held, during which a nominated legal practitioner would manage the defendant's defence. This decision was made in accordance with the legislative framework, which aims to balance the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial.

The final orders of the court included the appointment of a nominated legal practitioner to conduct the defendant's defence during the special hearing. The court also directed that the defendant be examined by a qualified psychiatrist to assess his fitness to be tried at a future date. The special hearing was scheduled to ensure that the defendant's rights were protected and that the trial process could proceed in a manner that was just and appropriate given the circumstances.

Orders