R v Steurer - [2008] ACTSC 141

R v REINHOLD STEURER [2008] ACTSC 141 (16 December 2008)

CRIMINAL LAW ─ criminal liability and capacity ─ fitness to plead ─ capacity to enter a plea ─ accused found fit to plead.
CRIMINAL LAW ─ evidence ─ expert evidence ─ psychiatric assessments of accused.
CRIMINAL LAW ─ fitness to plead ─ unfitness to plead ─ determination on balance of probabilities.
CRIMINAL LAW ─ fitness to plead ─ whether court is obliged to accept plea of guilty ─ likely finding at trial of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 311, 312, 321
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 28
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68B

Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Yeo [2008] NSWSC 953 (17 September 2008)
Maxwell v The Queen [1995-1996] 184 CLR 501
R v Martin (1904) 21 WN (NSW) 233

No. SCC 226 of 2007

Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 December 2008

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 226 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R

v

REINHOLD STEURER

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  16 December 2008
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

Reinhold Steurer is fit to plead to the charge that he murdered his father on 26 April 2007.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A further assessment of Mr Steurer’s fitness to plead be conducted within the period of 2 months before the date fixed for Mr Steurer’s trial, with specific reference to the concerns expressed by Drs George and Allnutt relating to Mr Steurer’s auditory hallucinations and his delusional beliefs respectively.

Introduction

Reinhold Steurer has been charged with the murder of his father, Michael Steurer.

There is no dispute about the central facts in this case. Michael Steurer died on 26 April 2007 of blood loss after being stabbed by his son shortly after a minor disagreement between the two men.

Court processes

Order for forensic mental health assessment

On 17 July 2007 Reinhold Steurer was committed for trial in the Supreme Court, and a forensic mental health assessment was ordered. The assessment was to address the criteria for fitness to plead under s 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) and the criteria for criminal responsibility under s 28 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

Application for determination of fitness to plead

An application for a determination of Mr Steurer’s fitness to plead under s 311 of the Crimes Act came before me on 10 June 2008. Several assessments of Mr Steurer’s mental health were tendered to me, and counsel invited me to consider those in depth and then indicate whether further assessments, or oral evidence, would be needed before the determination could be made.

Election for trial by judge alone

On 15 April 2008 Mr Steurer made an election under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) to be tried by a judge alone. In anticipation of a finding that Mr Steurer was not fit to plead, his legal representatives were…

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 Steurer

Details

AGLC: R v Steurer [2008] ACTSC 141
Case: [2008] ACTSC 141
Decision Date: 16 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Steurer, the defendant was charged with the murder of his father on 26 April 2007. The case came before the court to determine whether the defendant was fit to plead to the charge, and if so, whether the court was obliged to accept a plea of guilty. The court was tasked with evaluating expert psychiatric evidence and assessing the defendant's fitness to stand trial.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the defendant's fitness to plead, the weight to be given to expert psychiatric evidence, and the obligations of the court if the defendant were found fit to plead. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the court was obliged to accept a plea of guilty if the defendant was found fit to plead, and if so, under what circumstances.

The court found that the defendant was fit to plead, based on the evidence provided by the psychiatric experts, despite concerns raised by some of the experts regarding the defendant's auditory hallucinations and delusional beliefs. The court held that the experts' opinions were not determinative, and that the court was not obliged to accept a plea of guilty if there was a likelihood that the defendant would be found not guilty by reason of mental impairment at trial. The court ordered that a further assessment of the defendant's fitness to plead be conducted before the trial, with specific reference to the concerns expressed by two of the experts.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

1. Reinhold Steurer is fit to plead to the charge that he murdered his father on 26 April 2007.THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2. A further assessment of Mr Steurer's fitness to plead be conducted within the period of 2 months before the date fixed for Mr Steurer's trial, with specific reference to the concerns expressed by Drs George and Allnutt relating to Mr Steurer's auditory hallucinations and his delusional beliefs respectively.

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.