R v Steele (No 3) - [2013] SASC 191

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEELE (No 3)
[2013] SASC 191
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Gray
13 December 2013
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. The defendant applied for and was subsequently granted release on licence subject to conditions on 20 September 2012. Following a psychiatric report received on 19 June 2013, the defendant applied to vary his current conditions of licence. Whether the defendant should progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan. Three psychiatric reports and a victim and next of kin counselling report received.
Held:
(1) It is appropriate for the defendant to progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan (at [29]).
(2) The defendant will need to apply again to this Court in order to progress any further in the transition plan (at [29]).
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269FA(5)(b), s 269O(1)(b)(i), s 269Q, s 269R, s 269T(2) , Part 8A, referred to.
R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162; R v Steele [2012] SASC 55, considered.

R v STEELE (No 3)
[2013] SASC 191
Criminal
GRAY J.

This is an application to vary current conditions of 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). The objective elements of the offence of murder were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
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.
[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…

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 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Steele (No 3) [2013] SASC 191
Case: [2013] SASC 191
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Steele (No 3) involved the defendant, Steele, and the court had to decide on the appropriate post-custodial orders for the defendant's release. The matter was heard and determined by the relevant court. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant was suitable to progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan, which involved his release from custody to a secure facility, Ashton House. The court also needed to consider the level of security offered at Ashton House and whether it was sufficient to house the defendant during this transitional phase.

In reaching its decision, the court considered various reports, including psychiatric assessments, a victim and next of kin counselling report, and the level of security offered at Ashton House. The court was satisfied that Ashton House provided a high standard of care and supervision, with a high staff-to-resident ratio and a small number of residents. The court was also informed that Ashton House is a secure facility, representing a sensible and secure first stage for readjusting to life in the community. The court was satisfied that the proposed level of security should be sufficient to house the defendant on stages 3 and 4 of the new leave program.

Based on the psychiatric reports, the victim and next of kin counselling report, and the level of security offered at Ashton House, the court concluded that it was appropriate for the defendant to progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan. The defendant would need to apply again to the court in order to progress any further in the transition plan. The court directed that minutes of the order should be prepared and submitted for its approval. This decision allowed the defendant to take the next step towards reintegration into the community under controlled conditions.

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

Upon attending Ashton House, I was informed of the high quality standard of care and supervision that is to be applied to people resident at Ashton House. It is a well-designed facility. There are high level security systems in place. The Police are directly contactable in the event of assistance being required. While Ashton House is a step-down facility from the higher level care and monitoring of James Nash House, it remains a secure facility. The staff to resident ratio is high, with a small number of residents capped at 10. Ashton House represents a sensible and secure first stage to starting to readjust to life in the community. I am satisfied that the proposed level of security should be sufficient to house the defendant on stages 3 and 4 of the new leave program.Conclusion I am satisfied on the basis of the psychiatric reports, the victim and next of kin counselling report and the level of security offered at Ashton House that it is appropriate for the defendant to progress to stages 3 and 4 of the amended transition plan. The defendant will need to apply again to this Court in order to progress any further in the transition plan. Minutes of order should be prepared and submitted for my approval.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.