R v Stevenson
[2021] ACTSC 299
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Stevenson |
Citation: | [2021] ACTSC 299 |
Hearing Date: | 22 November 2021 |
DecisionDate: | 22 November 2021 |
Before: | Elkaim ACJ |
Decision: | See [19] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – pleas of not guilty due to mental impairment – proof of offences – proof of mental impairment – referral to ACAT |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 34, 321 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) |
Cases Cited: | M'Naghten's Case [1843] EngR 875; (1843) 10 Cl & F 200; 8 ER 718 |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Bradley Robert Stevenson ( Accused) |
Representation: | Counsel V Conliffe ( Crown) J Sabharwal ( Accused) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Armstrong Legal ( Accused) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 151 of 2021; SCC 152 of 2021 |
ELKAIM ACJ:
The accused, Mr Bradley Stevenson, was arraigned before me this morning. He pleaded not guilty by reason of mental impairment to each of the following three counts in an indictment dated 22 July 2021:
(a) Count 1: Stalking whilst possessing an offensive weapon contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2020/10186).
(b) Count 2 and 3: Damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (SCCAN2021/108 and SCCAN2021/109).
The same plea was entered in respect of a charge transferred from the Magistrates Court, namely that the accused possessed an offensive weapon contrary to s 380 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CAN10185/20).
The matter proceeded by way of documentary evidence, included in Exhibits A, 1 and 2.
The first task of the Court is to decide if the facts alleged against the accused have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This relates to the physical elements of the charges, the mental elements being the subject of the mental impairment issue.
The evidence in relation to the facts is included in Exhibit A, the Agreed Statement of Facts. It is immediately obvious that the facts are conceded as was the establishment of the offences through the agreed facts.
It is not necessary for me to repeat the facts in the statement. I will however quote the summary:
The accused is also charged with a transfer offence of possessing an offensive weapon in circumstances likely to cause alarm contrary to section 380 of the Crimes Act 1900.
On August 2020, the accused loitered near [the complainant’s] worksite in Isabella Plains and watched her as she was landscaping a nature strip. The next day, 26 August 2020, the accused returned to the worksite and approached [the complainant] holding a knife. [The complainant] fled the site in her car and the accused followed her in his. Whilst [the complainant] was stationary at a red light the accused rammed his car into the rear of her car, causing a four-car pileup.
A matter which is not covered in the above summary is the detail about how terrifying the events must have been to the victim, the complainant. I have no doubt that on both 25 August 2020 and on the following day, she would have experienced feelings ranging from concern to outright terror.
The actions of the accused, both in respect of his driving of a motor vehicle and his possession of a knife are completely consistent with these passages in the detailed facts:
[The complainant] told Constable Murray “he’s coming after us, he’s got a knife”. As she said this, [the complainant] was screaming and crying and sounded terrified and short of breath.
Following the impact [the complainant] sat in the driver’s seat and screamed, not knowing what to do and fearing what the accused might do.
As a result of the collision, [the complainant] felt pain in her neck and chest and received minor scratches to her lower legs. As a result, ACT Ambulance Service attended and [the complainant] was conveyed to the Canberra Hospital for examination.
I agree with the position of both the Crown and the accused that the facts of the offending have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The next step is to deal with the question of mental impairment. The Crown does not give consent to the entering of a special verdict pursuant to s 321 of the Crimes Act. However, the Crown has no objection to an order being made under s 28(7)(a) of the Criminal Code. The latter section is in the following terms:
28Mental impairment and criminal responsibility
(1)A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, when carrying out the conduct required for the offence, the person was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that—
(a)the person did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or
(b)the person did not know that the conduct was wrong; or
(c)the person could not control the conduct.
(2)For subsection (1)(b), a person does not know that conduct is wrong if the person cannot reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct, as seen by a reasonable person, is wrong.
(3)The question whether a person was suffering from a mental impairment is a question of fact.
(4)A person is presumed not to have been suffering from a mental impairment.
(5)The presumption is displaced only if it is proved on the balance of probabilities (by the prosecution or defence) that the person was suffering from a mental impairment.
(6)The prosecution may rely on this section only if the court gives leave.
(7)If the trier of fact is satisfied that a person is not criminally responsible for an offence only because of mental impairment, it must—
(a)for an offence dealt with before the Supreme Court—return or enter a special verdict that the person is not guilty of the offence because of mental impairment; or
(b)for any other offence—find the person not guilty of the offence because of mental impairment.
The evidence concerning the criminal responsibility of the accused is contained in Exhibits 1 and 2, the reports of Associate Prof Kasinathan, a forensic psychiatrist, dated 10 February and 22 October 2021 respectively and a letter from Dr Bonner, also a psychiatrist, which is part of an email dated 24 August 2020.
Associate Prof Kasinathan says, in his first report:
From the information available to the writer, it was more probable than not, that Mr Stevenson was mentally ill at the time of the commission of the alleged offences within the meaning of the McNaughton Rules (referring to M'Naghten's Case [1843] EngR 875; (1843) 10 Cl & F 200; 8 ER 718).
At the material time of the alleged offences, your client was labouring from a significant defect of reason as not to appreciate, with reasonableness, the quality and nature of the alleged acts. In the writer’s opinion, Mr Stevenson has the defence of mental illness available to them. From the information available to the writer, it was more probable than not, that Mr Stevenson was harbouring under significant impairment from their poorly treated schizophrenia, at the material time.
This severe untreated psychiatric illness impaired Mr Stevenson’s capacity to judge whether his actions were right or wrong, because he held a delusion that he was persecuted by a group including the alleged victim, and he heard the victim’s voice and another voice commanding him to hurt her.
In his second report Associate Prof Kasinathan, having been directed to specific sections of the Criminal Code, puts the issues explicitly in terms of ss 27, 28 and 29 of the Code. He concludes:
From the information available to the writer, in the writer’s forensic psychiatric opinion, Mr Stevenson has the defence of mental impairment available to them, to be found not criminally responsible for the offences because of his mental impairment, according to s 28(7).
Dr Bonner’s letter is more of a clinical observation of the accused’s treatment and his admissions to the Access Mental Health Unit. The doctor’s initial diagnosis was of a “psychotic disorder with comorbid fairly severe autism spectrum disorder”. Dr Bonner ended his letter in this way:
First presentation with psychosis, with auditory hallucinations that lead him to believe he must kill his father.
…
No ideas at time of interview to harm himself or to harm others. However, he likely responds to voices when these occur and then there is some risk particularly to his father. There is also some risk that he might harm himself (given the recent driving into a post).
There is no competing opinion to that of Associate Prof Kasinathan and Dr Bonner.
Accordingly, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that at the time when the offences were committed the accused was suffering from mental impairment so as to render him not criminally responsible, as required under s 28 of the Criminal Code. I again note the Crown’s statement that it did not oppose an order being made under s 28(7).
The final step is to decide upon the course of action flowing from the above findings. Section 324 of the Crimes Act says:
(1) This section applies if an accused is charged with a serious offence and a special verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment is returned or entered by the Supreme Court.
(2) The Supreme Court must—
(a) order that the accused be detained in custody for immediate review by the ACAT under the Mental Health Act 2015, section 180; or
(b) if, taking into account the criteria for detention in section 308, it is more appropriate — order that the accused submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act 2015. A “serious offence” is defined in s 325. Having regard to the description of the offences I am satisfied that they were serious. This finding was conceded on the part of the accused.
The parties also agreed on what final course should be followed: they requested an order be made pursuant to s 324(2)(b) of the Crimes Act. This order is that “the accused submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act2015”.
I make the following orders:
1.A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment is entered in respect of the following offences:
(i)Stalking whilst possessing an offensive weapon contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CC2020/10186).
(ii)Damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code (SCCAN2021/108)
(iii)Damaging property, contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code (SCCAN2021/109)
(iv)Possessing an offensive weapon contrary to s 380 of the Crimes Act (CAN10185/20).
2.Pursuant to s 324(2)(b) of the Crimes Act, Mr Stevenson is ordered to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT).
| I certify that the preceding nineteen [19] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Acting Chief Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: 22 November 2021 |
**************
Amendments
23 November 2021 Delete paragraph [19]. Paragraph [19]
Replace ‘See [20]’ with ‘See [19]’. Title Page
0
0
0