R v Steele (No 4) - [2014] SASC 205

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEELE (No 4)
[2014] SASC 205
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Gray
24 December 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - MENTAL HEALTH, HOSPITAL SECURITY ORDERS, ETC - REVIEW
Application to vary the terms of a licence pursuant to section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Defendant and applicant found not guilty of the offence of murder on the basis that he was not mentally competent to commit the offence. The defendant has been diagnosed with, inter alia, schizophrenia and is subject to supervision under Part 8A of the Act. The defendant has been successfully following a treatment plan put in place by his treating psychiatrist and has applied to progress to the next stage of the treatment plan, which involves overnight stays at Ashton House.
Whether it is appropriate to amend the terms of the licence.
Held (allowing the application):
1. The defendant is responding well to treatment. The evidence overwhelmingly supports a change in the terms of his licence conditions to allow overnight stays at Ashton House.
2. The defendant remains a risk to the community. Accordingly, it is appropriate that he remain supervised while in public.
3. There are sufficient resources available to facilitate the next stage of the defendant’s treatment.
4. The defendant is aware of the seriousness of his offending and is capable of complying with, and intends to comply with, his licence conditions.
5. The victim's family's concerns underscore the need for the Court to make orders which address the protection of the community.
6. Having regard to the matters in section 269T of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, it is appropriate to amend the terms of the defendant’s licence to facilitate overnight stays at Ashton House.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269O, s 269P, s 269Q, s 269R, s 269T and s 269Z, referred to.
R v Steele [2012] SASC 55; R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162; R v Steele (No 3) [2013] SASC 191, considered.

R v STEELE (No 4)
[2014] SASC 205
Criminal
GRAY J.

This is an application to vary the conditions of a licence pursuant to section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
Background
The defendant and applicant, Matthew Robert Steele, was charged with the offence of murder. The defendant elected to be tried by judge alone. The defendant admitted the elements comprising the actus reus of the offence, including that, at approximately 11.00 am on 21 June 2006 at Clearview, he, without lawful excuse, attacked Umberto Crisante with a hammer and that Mr Crisante died as a result of the injuries suffered in the attack. The defendant pleaded not guilty on the basis that he was not mentally competent to commit the offence. Counsel appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions at trial accepted that the psychiatric evidence fully justified a finding that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit…

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 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Steele (No 4) [2014] SASC 205
Case: [2014] SASC 205
Decision Date: 24 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Steele (No 4), the defendant, Matthew Robert Steele, applied to vary the conditions of his licence under section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). Steele was charged with the murder of Umberto Crisante, an offence he committed while mentally incompetent. Following a trial, the court found Steele not guilty by reason of mental incompetence and made a supervision order with a life limiting term. Over the years, Steele's application to vary the conditions of his licence to allow for more freedom was progressively considered by the court. The latest application sought permission for overnight stays at Ashton House, a secure facility, as part of his transition plan towards community integration.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the defendant's licence conditions should be varied to allow overnight stays at Ashton House and whether unsupervised leaves could be granted. The court had to consider the defendant's mental condition, the risk he posed to the community, the adequacy of resources for his treatment, and his likelihood of complying with licence conditions. The court also needed to take into account reports from experts, the defendant's next of kin, and the victim's family.

The court concluded that the psychiatric evidence supported varying the licence conditions to facilitate Steele's rehabilitation, though the seriousness of his offence and ongoing mental health issues meant he still posed a risk. The court allowed overnight stays at Ashton House, subject to the frequency being determined by the Clinical Director of the Forensic Mental Health Service. However, the court was not prepared to grant unsupervised leaves at this stage, as Steele needed to demonstrate he could manage overnight stays and comply with his licence conditions. The court emphasised the need for caution due to the gravity of Steele's crime and his ongoing mental health challenges.

The final orders of the court allowed for overnight stays at Ashton House for Steele, while deferring the decision on unsupervised leaves pending further demonstration of his progress. This decision balanced the need for Steele's rehabilitation with the imperative to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

This is an application to vary the conditions of a licence pursuant to section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).Background The defendant and applicant, Matthew Robert Steele, was charged with the offence of murder. The defendant elected to be tried by judge alone. The defendant admitted the elements comprising the actus reus of the offence, including that, at approximately 11.00 am on 21 June 2006 at Clearview, he, without lawful excuse, attacked Umberto Crisante with a hammer and that Mr Crisante died as a result of the injuries suffered in the attack. The defendant pleaded not guilty on the basis that he was not mentally competent to commit the offence. Counsel appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions at trial accepted that the psychiatric evidence fully justified a finding that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence. In 2008, I recorded findings that the objective elements of the offence were proved beyond reasonable doubt and that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence. I made a supervision order pursuant to section 269O of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act and set a limiting term of life, pursuant to 269O(2) of the Act. My published reasons set out the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr Crisante, together with the relevant psychiatric evidence.[1] [1] R v Steele [2012] SASC 55. In 2011, the defendant applied for a variation to his supervision order to allow a release on licence. Mr Crisante’s family were heard on the application. With the agreement of counsel appearing for the Director, I authorised the defendant’s release on licence for the first two stages of a six stage transition plan prepared by the defendant’s treating psychiatrist, William Brereton, a consultant forensic psychiatrist at James Nash House. My published reasons set out the relevant psychiatric evidence concerning the defendant’s suitability for release on licence and the proposed transition plan.[2] In summary, the licence permitted the defendant to engage in restricted, supervised daytime outings from James Nash House. The police were to be kept informed of the defendant’s weekly activity plan. [2] R v Steele(No 2) [2012] SASC 162. In 2013, following the successful implementation of the first two stages of the transition plan, a modified plan was provided to the Court. With the consent of Mr Crisante’s family and counsel appearing for the Director, I granted the defendant’s application to progress to stages three and four of the amended transition plan. My published reasons set out in detail the psychiatric evidence on which I relied and the amended terms of the transition plan.[3] In summary, stages three and four of the amended transition plan provided for the defendant to spend some time at Ashton House, which is a secure facility designed to bridge the gap between inpatient services and supported community placements. [3] R v Steele (No 3) [2013] SASC 191. On 24 April 2014, the Court received the annual report concerning the defendant pursuant to section 269Q(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The report was prepared by Dr Brereton and Maree de Jong, a psychiatry registrar at James Nash House. In their report, Dr de Jong and Dr Brereton set out the defendant’s course of medication and provide an update to the Court on the defendant’s progress. Dr de Jong and Dr Brereton relevantly opine:[The defendant] is motivated and engaged in his rehabilitation program, including group activities. He is polite and appropriate in his interactions with staff. [The defendant] has responded well to treatment on clozapine and his mental state has remained stable on his current medication with no evidence of mood disturbance or psychotic symptoms. There have been no concerns raised about his mental state or behaviour in recent times....[The defendant] is in the process of making an application to the courts to proceed to the next phase of his transition plan which would involve a lower level of security and staff supervision. The long term plan for [the defendant] is to eventually spend longer periods of time at Ashton House and eventually to be discharged to Ashton House where he can then transition to suitable supported accommodation in the community.The Application

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J

Having regard to the foregoing, I am prepared to authorise overnight stays at Ashton House. I consider that the defendant has prospects for rehabilitation and do not preclude the possibility of further amending his licence conditions to facilitate his rehabilitation. However, at the present time, I am not prepared to grant unsupervised leaves contemplated by stage five of the defendant’s plan. In my view, it is not appropriate to authorise unsupervised leaves until I am satisfied that the defendant can manage overnight stays at Ashton House and can continue to comply with his licence conditions. In light of the seriousness of the defendant’s offending and ongoing medical condition, the Court must approach any relaxation of the defendant’s licence conditions with caution.Conclusion I amend the defendant’s licence conditions to allow overnight stays at Ashton House. The frequency of these overnight stays is to be determined by the Clinical Director of the Forensic Mental Health Service, or a consultant psychiatrist nominated by him or her.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Ms Kontopoulos summarised the views of the defendant’s next of kin as follows:[The defendant’s next of kin] stated they are in total agreement of the next stage of transition which includes overnight stays at Ashton House and unescorted leave. [They] state that they have seen the defendant progress with rehabilitation and seen major improvements in his outlook in life. The transition so far has given them hope that the defendant can move forward in the future. [They] stated that the defendant is achieving his rehabilitation goals which are assisting him in coping with his anxieties and mental health. [The defendant’s mother] stated that she has lost one son, and this offence was like losing another son “but we have the defendant back and can see the positives”. [The defendant’s mother] stated she “truly believes the defendant has the potential to have a change and to help others in the community.”Consideration In deciding a proceeding of this nature I am required to have regard to the matters in section 269T of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, which provides as follows:Matters to which court is to have regard(1) In deciding proceedings under this Division, the court should have regard to—(a) the nature of the defendant's mental impairment; and(b) whether the defendant is, or would if released be, likely to endanger another person, or other persons generally; and(c) whether there are adequate resources available for the treatment and support of the defendant in the community; and(d) whether the defendant is likely to comply with the conditions of a licence; and(e) other matters that the court thinks relevant.(2) The court cannot release a defendant under this Division, or significantly reduce the degree of supervision to which a defendant is subject unless the court—(a) has considered at least three reports (expert reports) each prepared by a different psychiatrist or other appropriate expert who has personally examined the defendant, on—(i) the mental condition of the defendant; and(ii) the possible effects of the proposed action on the behaviour of the defendant; and(b) has considered the report most recently submitted to the court by the Minister under this Division; and(c) has considered the report on the attitudes of victims and next of kin prepared under this Division; and(d) is satisfied that—(i) the defendant's next of kin; and(ii) the victim (if any) of the defendant's conduct; and(iii) if a victim was killed as a result of the defendant's conduct—the next of kin of the victim,have been given reasonable notice of the proceedings.... The psychiatric evidence overwhelmingly supports a change to the defendant’s licence conditions in the terms discussed earlier in these reasons to facilitate his rehabilitation. Though the defendant’s condition is serious, the evidence suggests that the defendant is making good progress with his rehabilitation and treatment. Having regard to the seriousness of the defendant’s offending and psychiatric condition, I remain of the view that, despite his progress, he poses a risk to the community and should remain under supervision.