R v Susan Michelle Keevers - [2011] ACTSC 118

R v SUSAN MICHELLE KEEVERS [2011] ACTSC 118 (15 July 2011)

FITNESS TO PLEAD INQUIRY – charge of aggravated robbery – whether accused understood that the proceeding is an inquiry into commission of offence – whether accused could understand the effect of any evidence given in prosecution case – whether accused could follow the course of a proceeding – whether deafness is, or results in, a disorder or impairment of a person’s mental processes – deafness was not profound and insuperable so as to render accused unable to follow the course of a proceeding – found fit to plead.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 311(1), (a),(b),(c),(d), (e) and (f)
R v Bailiff (2010) 5 ACTLR 1

Macquarie Dictionary (2011) viewed 14 July 2011

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 133 of 2010

Judge: Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 15 July 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 133 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R

v

SUSAN MICHELLE KEEVERS

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  15 July 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FOUND THAT:

(a)Pursuant to s 311(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), Ms Keevers is fit to plead to the charge of aggravated burglary on the indictment dated 14 April 2010.

Introduction

Susan Michelle Keevers has been charged with aggravated robbery alleged to have been committed on 19 July 2009.

When she was committed to the Supreme Court for trial in April 2010, there was before the Magistrate a report by Dr Graham George dated 3 March 2010 (the 2010 report) advising that Ms Keevers was not fit to plead to the charge. Accordingly, in committing her for trial, the Magistrate expressly reserved the question of her fitness to plead.

In May 2010, a further report from Forensic Mental Health was ordered, and that report has now been provided, dated 5 April 2011 (the 2011 report).

Ms Keevers’ fitness to plead now falls to be determined having regard to those two reports.

Criteria for determining fitness to plead

In R v Bailiff (2010) 5 ACTLR 1, I summarised (at [9]) the issues in determining whether a person is fit to plead, as follows:

Section 311 of the Crimes Act sets out the criteria for determining whether a person is fit to plead, and s 312 of that Act sets out the nature of the inquiry and determination. ... In summary:
(a) A person is presumed to be fit to plead.
(b)The presumption is rebutted if it is established that the person is unfit to plead.
(c)A person is unfit to plead if his or her mental processes are disordered or impaired such that the person cannot understand, or participate properly in, various specified elements of the normal criminal processes.
(d)The question of fitness to plead is a question of fact to be decided on the balance of probabilities, with no party bearing a burden of proof.

As I noted in Bailiff (at [12] and [13]), the question of fitness to plead to…

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 Susan Michelle Keevers

Details

AGLC: R v Susan Michelle Keevers [2011] ACTSC 118
Case: [2011] ACTSC 118
Decision Date: 15 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Susan Michelle Keevers involved a fitness to plead inquiry concerning the defendant's ability to understand the proceedings and the consequences of her actions. The defendant was charged with aggravated robbery, and the court was tasked with determining whether she was fit to stand trial. The inquiry was conducted in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Jane Dixon. The legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant understood that the proceeding was an inquiry into the commission of an offence, could understand the effect of any evidence given in the prosecution case, and could follow the course of the proceeding. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether deafness, in the defendant's case, constituted a disorder or impairment of her mental processes that would affect her fitness to plead.

The court examined the defendant's level of deafness and its impact on her ability to participate in the legal process. It was established that the defendant's deafness was not profound and insuperable, and therefore did not render her unable to follow the course of the proceeding. The court concluded that the defendant was capable of understanding the nature of the proceedings, the evidence presented, and the consequences of her actions. Consequently, the court found the defendant fit to plead to the charge of aggravated robbery.

Justice Dixon detailed the court's reasoning, emphasizing the importance of the defendant's ability to comprehend the proceedings and engage in her defence. The decision hinged on the understanding that the defendant's deafness, while significant, did not impede her capacity to participate meaningfully in the legal process. The court acknowledged the defendant's right to a fair trial and determined that her fitness to plead was not compromised by her hearing impairment.

The final orders of the court were that Susan Michelle Keevers was found fit to plead to the charge of aggravated robbery. The trial could proceed with the defendant's full understanding and participation. This decision ensured that the defendant's rights were upheld and that the legal process was conducted fairly and justly.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find Ms Keevers fit to plead to the charge of aggravated robbery.

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.