R v Steele (No 5) - [2016] SASC 6

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v STEELE (No 5)
[2016] SASC 6
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Gray
8 February 2016
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). Applicant found not guilty of the offence of murder on the basis that he was not mentally competent to commit the offence. The applicant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and is subject to supervision under Part 8A of the Act. The applicant has been successfully following a transition plan put in place by his treating psychiatrist and has applied to progress to the next stage of the transition plan, which involves unaccompanied leave from Ashton House.
Held (granting the application in part):
1.      The applicant’s rehabilitation is progressing well.
2.      The applicant now poses a low risk to the community.
3.      The applicant should be able to cope with a managed program of graduated unaccompanied leave and the implementation of such a program should have a positive impact on his behaviour.
4.      The applicant’s outings should remain subject to some geographical restrictions to avoid inadvertent contact with the victim’s family.
5.      Given the seriousness of the applicant’s conduct and diagnosis, he should not be discharged from James Nash House without a further order of from this Court.
6.      It remains appropriate for the police and victim’s family to be informed of the applicant’s activity plan.
7.      It is otherwise appropriate for the applicant to progress to the next stage of his transition plan.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269O, s 269P and s 269T, referred to.
R v Steele [2012] SASC 55; R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162; R v Steele (No 3) [2013] SASC 191; R v Steele (No 4) [2014] SASC 205, considered.

R v STEELE (No 5)
[2016] SASC 6
Criminal
GRAY J.

This is an application to vary a supervision order and conditions of a release on licence pursuant to section 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
On 17 December 2015, subject to a number of qualifications discussed below, I made an order varying the supervision order and conditions of licence in respect of the defendant and applicant, Matthew Robert Steele, to allow him to progress to the next stages of his transition plan. My reasons follow.
Background
In 2006, the defendant attacked and killed Umberto Crisante with a hammer. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the offence of murder on the basis that he was not mentally competent to commit the offence. Following his detention in James Nash House, a secure mental health facility, the defendant was diagnosed with schizophrenia. On 21 May 2008, I recorded findings that the objective elements of the offence were proved beyond reasonable doubt but that the defendant was not guilty on the grounds of…

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 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Steele (No 5) [2016] SASC 6
Case: [2016] SASC 6
Decision Date: 8 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew Robert Steele, the defendant and applicant, applied to the Supreme Court of South Australia for a variation to his supervision order and the conditions of his licence. In 2006, Steele had attacked and killed Umberto Crisante with a hammer. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia and found not guilty of murder on the basis of mental incompetence. In 2008, a supervision order was made under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, committing Steele to detention with a limiting term of life. This was Steele's fifth application to vary his supervision order and the conditions of his licence, following four previous applications in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Each application sought to progress Steele to the next stages of his transition plan, prepared by his treating psychiatrist, Dr William Brereton.

The legal issues before the Court were whether Steele should be allowed to progress to the next stages of his transition plan, specifically unaccompanied leave from Ashton House, and whether certain geographical restrictions should be relaxed. The Court considered the nature of Steele's mental impairment, the risk he posed to the community, the adequacy of resources for his treatment and support in the community, and whether he was likely to comply with the conditions of a licence. The Court also had to consider the reports of three psychiatrists, the most recent report by the Minister, and the report on the attitudes of victims and next of kin.

The Court found that Steele's condition was serious, but his rehabilitation was progressing well. He had been described as a model patient and was fully cooperative with his treatment. The risk he now posed to the community was low, and there were adequate resources available to support his ongoing rehabilitation. The evidence established that Steele should be able to cope with a managed program of graduated unaccompanied leave, which should have a positive impact on his behaviour. The Court also considered the submissions of the victim's family, who did not oppose Steele being allowed unaccompanied leave from Ashton House and a degree of relaxation of his geographical restrictions, but were concerned that some of the existing restrictions remain in place.

The Court allowed in part Steele's application to vary his supervision order and the conditions of his licence. Steele was permitted to commence unaccompanied leaves from Ashton House in accordance with stages five and six of his transition plan. He would continue to spend up to five nights per week at Ashton House. The Court also considered it appropriate for Steele to be limited to attending the local library on two set days per week to avoid any inadvertent contact between Steele and the victim's family. The victim's family and police should continue to be informed of Steele's activity plan, but the plan need not detail the time of the activity. The date and location of that activity would be sufficient. The Court did not consider it appropriate for Steele to be discharged from James Nash House without a further order from the Court. Steele was also not permitted to attend the shopping centre frequented by the victim's family – there was another nearby shopping centre which he could visit instead.

The Court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the psychiatric evidence. The Court was satisfied that Steele's rehabilitation was progressing well, and that he should be supported in his rehabilitation with a view to his eventual reintegration into the community as a functional member of society. However, the Court was mindful of the need to carefully manage Steele's rehabilitation to ensure that the community was appropriately protected.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 17 December 2015, subject to a number of qualifications discussed below, I made an order varying the supervision order and conditions of licence in respect of the defendant and applicant, Matthew Robert Steele, to allow him to progress to the next stages of his transition plan. My reasons follow.Background In 2006, the defendant attacked and killed Umberto Crisante with a hammer. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the offence of murder on the basis that he was not mentally competent to commit the offence. Following his detention in James Nash House, a secure mental health facility, the defendant was diagnosed with schizophrenia. On 21 May 2008, I recorded findings that the objective elements of the offence were proved beyond reasonable doubt but that the defendant was not guilty on the grounds of mental incompetence. On 18 July 2008, I made a supervision order committing the defendant to detention, pursuant to section 269O(1)(b)(i) 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 attack, together with the relevant psychiatric evidence.[1][1] R v Steele [2012] SASC 55. The present application follows a number of previous applications by the defendant to vary his supervision order and the conditions of his licence. Those applications may be summarised as follows. In 2012, with the agreement of counsel appearing for the Director of Public Prosecutions, 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.[2] The victim’s family were heard on the application and the Court received psychiatric evidence concerning the defendant’s suitability for release on licence. In summary, the first two stages of the transition plan permitted the defendant to engage in restricted, supervised daytime outings from James Nash House. [2] R v Steele (No 2) [2012] SASC 162. In 2013, following the successful implementation of the first two stages of the transition plan and with the agreement of counsel appearing for the Director, I granted the defendant’s application to progress to stages three and four of an amended transition plan which, in summary, allowed the defendant to spend some time at Ashton House, a Forensic Step-Down Rehabilitation Unit.[3] The victim’s family were heard on the application and the Court received psychiatric evidence concerning the appropriateness of the defendant progressing to the next stages of his transition plan.[3] R v Steele (No 3) [2013] SASC 191. In 2014, the defendant applied to progress to stages five and six of the plan, which respectively provided for unaccompanied leave from, and then overnight stays in, Ashton House. The victim’s family were heard on the application and the Court received psychiatric evidence concerning the defendant’s ability to cope with the proposed changes. With the agreement of counsel appearing for the Director, I amended the defendant’s licence conditions to allow overnight stays at Ashton House.[4] I was not prepared to allow the defendant to take unaccompanied leave from Ashton House until he had demonstrated that he could successfully manage overnight stays there. [4] R v Steele (No 4) [2014] SASC 205.The Application

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J

I am satisfied that the defendant continues to be appropriately remorseful for his actions and aware of the need for ongoing rehabilitation. His attitude toward his rehabilitation is encouraging. It is important that the defendant be supported in his rehabilitation with a view to his eventual reintegration into the community as a functional member of society. However, given the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct and diagnosis, I am mindful of the need to carefully manage his rehabilitation to ensure that the community is appropriately protected. As a consequence, I was not prepared to allow the defendant to be discharged from James Nash House without a further order from this Court. I do not consider it appropriate that, at this time, the defendant be permitted to attend the shopping centre frequented by the victim’s family – there is another nearby shopping centre which he can visit instead. Further, I consider it appropriate that the defendant is limited to attending the local library on two set days per week to avoid any inadvertent contact between the defendant and the victim’s family. I also consider that the victim’s family and police should continue to be informed of the defendant’s activity plan. However, the plan need not detail the time of the activity. The date and location of that activity will be sufficient. Otherwise, in my view, it is appropriate for the defendant to commence unaccompanied leaves from Ashton House in accordance with stages five and six of his transition plan. The defendant will continue to spend up to five nights per week at Ashton House.Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, I allowed in part the defendant’s application to vary his supervision order and conditions of his licence.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

At the hearing, counsel for the victim’s family submitted that, after having the opportunity to further consider the matter, the family did not oppose the defendant being allowed unaccompanied leave from Ashton House and a degree of relaxation of his geographical restrictions. However, they were concerned that some of the existing geographical restrictions, for example on the shopping centre and library they frequent, remain in place. Consideration Section 269T of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides: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 discloses that the defendant’s condition is serious. However, his rehabilitation is progressing well. He has been described as a model patient and is fully cooperative with all aspects of his treatment. The risk he now poses to the community is low and there are adequate resources available to support his ongoing rehabilitation. The evidence establishes that the defendant should be able to cope with a managed program of graduated unaccompanied leave. The implementation of such a program should have a positive impact on the defendant’s behaviour. The defendant’s parents and the victim’s family were given notice of the hearing and, as noted above, assisted with the preparation of a report. The victim’s family were represented at the hearing and had the opportunity to cross-examine Dr Brereton and make submissions to the Court, as did counsel for the Director. As events transpired, Dr Brereton was not required to give evidence.