R v Steele [No 8] - [2019] SASC 34

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
R v STEELE [NO 8]
[2019] SASC 34
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Hinton (ex tempore)
12 March 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING ORDERS - CUSTODIAL ORDERS - MENTAL HEALTH, HOSPITAL SECURITY ORDERS, ETC - REVIEW
Application for the variation of a supervision order and release on licence.
The applicant sought orders that permitted unaccompanied overnight leave in independent but assisted accommodation commencing one night per week and progressing to five nights per week. The applicant’s treating psychiatrist and forensic mental health team were supportive of the application as the next step in a long-term transition plan. The prosecution was not opposed but the victim’s next of kin were.
Held, granting the application, the applicant is permitted, at the discretion of the Director or his nominee, periods of accompanied and unaccompanied leave away from Ashton House for rehabilitation purposes, as approved by the Director or the nominee. Such periods of leave may include unaccompanied overnight leave to his supported accommodation up to two nights per week for the first two months, increasing, at the discretion of the Director or the nominee, to no more than three nights per week for the following month, four nights per week the month thereafter, and up to five nights per week from the sixth month from the date of these reasons.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 269, 269R, 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; R v Steele (No 5) [2016] SASC 6; R v Steele (No 6) [2016] SASC 124; R v Steele (No 7) [2018] SASC 85, considered.

R v STEELE [NO 8]
[2019] SASC 34
Criminal:
HINTON J (ex tempore):

This is an application for the variation of a supervision order and release on licence pursuant to s 269P of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA).
The history of this matter can be traced in the judgments of R v Steele[1] and R v Steele (No 2)[2] through to R v Steele (No 7).[3] These brief reasons should be read against the background of my reasons in R v Steele (No 7).
[1] [2012] SASC 55.
[2] [2012] SASC 162.
[3] [2018] SASC 85.
On 15 May 2018 I varied Mr Steele’s licence conditions permitting him unsupervised overnight leave from Ashton House limited to one night per week progressing at the discretion of the Director of Forensic Mental Health or his nominee to three nights per week. At that time any such overnight leave was to be spent by Mr Steele at his parents’ home and only at his parents’ home. I was concerned to ensure that on unaccompanied overnight leave in the community Mr Steele had the support of his parents and…

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 8]

Details

AGLC: R v Steele [No 8] [2019] SASC 34
Case: [2019] SASC 34
Decision Date: 12 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Steele, who was convicted of a criminal offence and was subject to sentencing by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was focused on the appropriate sentence for Steele, taking into account his mental health and the need for specific security measures to ensure public safety. The court was tasked with determining whether a custodial sentence was appropriate, and if so, what additional orders should be imposed to manage Steele's mental health and ensure security.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of an appropriate custodial sentence, the imposition of a hospital security order, and consideration of the balance between Steele's rights and the need to protect the public. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the impact of Steele's mental health on his culpability and rehabilitation prospects, and the necessity of additional security measures to prevent reoffending.

The court considered various factors in reaching its decision, including the seriousness of the offence, Steele's criminal history, his mental health condition, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to protect the public and provide Steele with the opportunity to receive treatment for his mental health issues. The court imposed a hospital security order, which required Steele to be detained in a secure hospital facility and receive appropriate treatment. The court found that this order was the most appropriate way to balance Steele's rights with the need to protect the public and ensure his rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for Steele, to be served in a secure hospital facility, and the imposition of a hospital security order. The court also directed that Steele receive appropriate medical and psychological treatment while in custody, and that his case be reviewed periodically to assess his progress and the ongoing need for security measures.

Orders