R v Steele (No 2) - [2012] SASC 162

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEELE (No 2)
[2012] SASC 162
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Gray
20 September 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - OTHER TYPES OF POST-CUSTODIAL ORDERS - RELEASE ON LICENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - MENTAL HEALTH, HOSPITAL SECURITY ORDERS, ETC - REVIEW
On 21 May 2008, the defendant was found mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder pursuant to section 269FA(5)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and committed to detention pursuant to an order made under section 269O(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) - the defendant applied for release on licence.
Held: The defendant released on licence under strict conditions - the defendant's progress to be reviewed by the Court before any relaxation of the strict conditions.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) 269FA(5)(b), 269O(1)(b)(i), 269P, Pt 8A, referred to.

R v STEELE (No 2)
[2012] SASC 162
Criminal
GRAY J.

This is an application for release on licence.
On 21 May 2008, I recorded my finding that Matthew Robert Steele, the defendant and applicant, was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of murder, the subject of the information, pursuant to section 269FA(5)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
On 18 July 2008, following the receipt of further materials, including a victim and next of kin counselling report,[1] victim impact statements, an antecedent report of the defendant and a further psychiatric report,[2] I made an order pursuant to section 269O(1)(b)(i) committing the defendant to detention under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I fixed a limiting term of life imprisonment.
[1] Section 269R(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides:
For the purpose of assisting the court to determine proceedings under this Division, the Crown must provide the court with a report setting out, so far as reasonably ascertainable, the views of—
(a) the next of kin of the defendant; and
(b) the victim (if any) of the defendant's conduct; and
(c) if a victim was killed as a result of the defendant's conduct—the next of kin of the victim
[2] Prepared pursuant to section 269Q of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
In the course of my published reasons for the making of the above findings and orders, I set out the circumstances surrounding the death of Umberto Crisante together with the evidence on which I relied in making an order of mental incompetence.
The Court has received annual reports concerning the defendant’s psychiatric condition together with reports from three psychiatrists with respect to the application for the defendant to be released on licence. Additionally, each of the psychiatrists gave oral evidence on the hearing of the application. All supported the defendant’s release on licence. However, all recognised that any release should involve a gradual relaxation from strict custody. Further, all acknowledged that it is in the interests of the defendant to commence his rehabilitation in the…

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 Steele (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162
Case: [2012] SASC 162
Decision Date: 20 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Steele (No 2) was heard by the Court, which addressed matters related to the defendant's sentencing, specifically post-custodial orders and the terms of release on licence. The central issue was whether the defendant, who had been deemed fit for a rehabilitation program but potentially posed a risk to public safety, could be released on licence with certain conditions.

The legal issues before the Court involved the assessment of the defendant's mental health and the appropriate post-custodial orders to balance the risks to public safety with the defendant's personal interests. The Court had to determine whether the defendant could be released on licence and, if so, under what conditions. The Court was also required to consider the need for psychiatric review and further consideration before any progression to later stages of the rehabilitation program.

The Court concluded that the defendant was in a stable condition and fit to commence the rehabilitation program. However, recognising the potential risk to public safety, the Court determined that a release on licence was appropriate, subject to specific terms and limitations. The Court ordered psychiatric review and further consideration before any progression to the later stages of the rehabilitation program. The Court also mandated that the parties submit final minutes of order for approval.

This decision underscores the Court's cautious approach in balancing the rehabilitation of the defendant with the need to protect public safety. The final orders reflect a measured and conditional release, with ongoing oversight to manage the identified risks.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

GRAY J

I do not propose in these reasons to further canvass the psychiatric evidence. In substance, the psychiatrists agreed that the defendant is in a stable condition and fit to start the proposed rehabilitation program. However, all agreed that stages three to six potentially posed some risk to public safety. All accepted that the assessment of the risk to public safety and the balancing of that risk with the defendant’s personal interests remains a matter for this Court. All agreed that it is appropriate for there to be psychiatric review and further consideration by the Court before there be any authorisation to embark on stages three to six. Conclusion I order that the defendant be released on licence on the terms and with the limitations referenced to earlier in these reasons. The parties are to submit final minutes of order for approval.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.