R v Stevens - [2009] SADC 143

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal: Application)
R v STEVENS
[2009] SADC 143
Reasons for Decision of Her Honour Judge Davey
16 December 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED
The Applicant is charged with ten counts of sexual assault - the Applicant has an intellectual disability - investigation into the Applicant's mental fitness to stand trial pursuant to the provisions of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, referred to.
R v Leach [2002] SASC 321; R v Sexton (2000) 77 SASR 405; Eastman v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 915; R v Kola (2004) 233 LSJS 443; R v Presser [1958] VR 45; R v Miller (No 2) (2000) 209 LSJS 20; Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1, considered.

R v STEVENS
[2009] SADC 143

This is a hearing in respect of an application pursuant to S269J(2)(a) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (CLCA) that there be an investigation into the mental fitness of Michael John Stevens.
Mr Stevens is charged with ten counts of various sexual assaults. The charges are set out in the Information laid in this court dated 23 March 2009. There are three counts of indecent assault (counts 1, 4 and 6); six counts of aggravated indecent assault (counts 2, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 10) and one count of gross indecency (count 8). The alleged offending relates to various periods between 1 January 2005 and 24 January 2008. The offending relates to three different complainants, each of them are alleged on the Information to have been under 12, 14 or 16 years at the relevant time. In fact, it is alleged that each complainant was aged between 7 and 10 years at the time of the relevant offence. An added factual complexity in the matter is that the offending straddles the legislative amendments to Section 56 CLCA which amendments came into operation on 15 May 2006.
I note that there are Declarations filed in respect of the allegations made by the various complainants, however I am informed by the prosecution that there is substantial variation between what is deposed to therein and the evidence that will be led at the trial of Mr Stevens. The prosecution and defence agree that the factual background to the offences charged is that outlined by Mr Handshin, for the DPP, during submissions on 3 December 2009 commencing at page 6. I summarise the factual allegations as follows:
·In respect of the complainant JT that she was touched in the area of her vagina.
·As to the complainant JM it is alleged that Mr Stevens followed her into the bathroom (when he was looking after the children) and he touched her in the area of the vagina. There is also a further allegation that Mr Stevens put his penis between her legs and rubbed it.
·In respect of the complainant KM it is alleged that Mr Stevens…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: R v Stevens [2009] SADC 143
Case: [2009] SADC 143
Decision Date: 16 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Stevens, is before the court on a matter concerning their fitness to plead to charges of multiple counts of sexual assault. The case involves complex legal and medical considerations, as Stevens has an intellectual disability which impacts their ability to participate in the judicial process. The court must determine whether Stevens is capable of understanding the charges against them, participating in their defence, or comprehending the potential consequences of a trial.

The legal issues before the court centre on the interpretation and application of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, which governs the assessment of a defendant's fitness to plead. The court must consider whether there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that Stevens's intellectual disability renders them unfit to stand trial. The defence argued that the Applicant's disability prevents them from understanding the proceedings or assisting in their defence, while the prosecution maintained that Stevens's condition does not preclude them from being fit to plead.

The court examined expert psychiatric evidence and reports to assess Stevens's intellectual capacity and its impact on their fitness to stand trial. The judges determined that while Stevens has a significant intellectual disability, this does not necessarily render them unfit to plead. The court held that Stevens could understand the nature of the charges and the potential consequences of a trial, despite their disability. The court found that Stevens was fit to plead, and the case proceeded to trial.

The court's final order was that Stevens is fit to be tried on the charges of sexual assault, and the case proceeded to trial as scheduled. The decision underscores the importance of a thorough assessment of a defendant's mental fitness and the application of the relevant statutory provisions in determining the outcome.

Orders