R v REINHOLD STEURER [2009] ACTSC 150 (10 November 2009)
CRIMINAL LAW – re-assessment of fitness to plead – nature of required ability to follow the course of proceeding – view of court proceedings as “gobbledygook” not necessarily indicative of unfitness – relevance of advice from accused’s legal representatives about capacity to give instructions.
CRIMINAL LAW – significance of accused’s mental state in criminal proceedings – ACT legislative scheme – verdicts available at ordinary trials and special hearings – special verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment.
CRIMINAL LAW – orders required after special verdict – detention order or order that person submit to jurisdiction of ACAT for mental health order to be made – matters to be taken into account in deciding which order to make – comparison of ACT and NSW arrangements – form and effect of detention order.
CRIMINAL LAW – orders required after special verdict – requirement where detention order made for best estimate of likely sentence if person had not been acquitted – inappropriateness of best estimate requirement where person found not guilty because of mental impairment – difficulty in giving reasons for best estimate where accused not guilty because of mental impairment – some ACT best estimates roughly half of maximum term of imprisonment.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 311, Part 13, s 312, Div 13.2, ss 315B, 315C, 316, 317, 321, 319, 324, 301, 302, 303, 308, 12
Crimes (Amendment) Act 1999 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 65(5)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 13, 27, 28, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 44
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 19(2), 21, 22, 26, 23, 52, 54, 25, 39
Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT), ss 28, 75, 72, 74
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1999 (ACT)
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v Cosseddo [2000] NSWSC 446
R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1
R vGoonerage [2005] ACTSC 96
R v King (2004) 155 ACTR 55
R v Mitchell (1999) 108 A Crim R 85
R v Paul JohnMcDermott (2003) 172 FLR 1
R vPolanski [2000] NSWSC 854
R v Pratt [2009] NSWSC 1108
R v SE [2009] NSWSC 785
R vWilson [2002] NSWSC 297
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465
Mayer-Gross, Slater and Roth, Clinical Psychiatry, Baillière, Tindall & Cassell, London, 3rd ed, 1970
No. SCC 226 of 2007
Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 10 November 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 226 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
REINHOLD STEURER
ORDER
Judge: Penfold J
Date: 10 November 2009
Place: Canberra
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
On 12 May 2009 Reinhold Steurer was found fit to plead to a charge of murder.
On 12 May 2009 Reinhold Steurer was found not guilty because of mental impairment of the murder of Michael Steurer on 26 April 2007.
A…
Continue reading R v Steurer
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Steurer [2009] ACTSC 150
- Case
- [2009] ACTSC 150
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed the legal issues by first clarifying the requirements for fitness to plead, emphasizing that perceiving court proceedings as "gobbledygook" does not necessarily indicate unfitness. It also considered the role of legal representatives in assessing and advising on the accused's capacity to follow the proceedings. Regarding the special verdict, the court highlighted the available verdicts under the ACT legislative scheme and the implications of a special verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment. Furthermore, the court deliberated on the orders to be made post-verdict, distinguishing between detention orders and orders that the person submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT for a mental health order.
In its reasoning, the court noted that a detention order under section 324 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) would be appropriate for Steurer, and ordered ACT Health to prepare an assessment of his mental health status, a treatment and care plan, and a risk assessment. The court determined that while a best estimate of likely sentence was typically required where a detention order was made, it was inappropriate to apply this requirement in cases where the person was found not guilty because of mental impairment. The court observed that providing reasons for a best estimate in such cases could be challenging and noted that some best estimates in the ACT were roughly half of the maximum term of imprisonment.
The final orders included a detention order for Reinhold Steurer, with a requirement for ACT Health to prepare a mental health assessment, treatment and care plan, and a risk assessment for him. This decision underscores the court's approach to balancing the need for public safety with the specific circumstances of the accused's mental impairment.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
1. On 12 May 2009 Reinhold Steurer was found fit to plead to a charge of murder.
2. On 12 May 2009 Reinhold Steurer was found not guilty because of mental impairment of the murder of Michael Steurer on 26 April 2007.
3. A detention order under s 324 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) in respect of Reinhold Steurer will be made on a date to be fixed.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. ACT Health prepare an assessment of the mental health status of Reinhold Steurer, a treatment and care plan for Mr Steurer, and a risk assessment relating to Mr Steurer.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.