Legal Research
Cases
R v Sutherland

R v Sutherland

Case [2012] ACTSC 62 4 May 2012

Discovery & Disclosure

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

Mental Health Law

Type to search within this case.

HUMAN RIGHTS

R v MATTHEW JAMES SUTHERLAND
[2012] ACTSC 62 (4 May 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming unfit during trial – effect of memory loss – whether accused can follow the course of proceedings – need for special arrangements – accused not unfit to plead.
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming unfit during trial – mental retardation – whether accused can instruct legal representatives – accused not unfit to plead.

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 21
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 24, 26, 311, 312, 314, 315, div 13.2
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 403(1), 404(1)

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 4733, 4735

Barnett, M., et al, “Psychological and Ethical Issues in the Relationship between Lawyers and Mentally Ill Clients” (2007) 11 University of Western Sydney Law Review 63
Ierace, M., Intellectual Disability: A Manual for Criminal Lawyers (Redfern Legal Centre, 1989)

R v Dashwood [1943] KB 1
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
Egan v JG [2010] ACTSC 53
Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 3 All ER 162
Dalle-Molle v Manos (2004) 88 SASR 193
R v Monaghan (No 2) [2011] ACTSC 62
Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1
Russell v HM Lord Advocate [1946] SC(J) 37
R v Podola [1960] 1 QB 325
R v Drummond (Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Gleeson CJ, Grove and Newman JJ, 27 May 1994)
R v Richards (1994) 64 SASR 42
R v Griffith [2008] ACTSC 77
Tasmania v Bosworth (2005) 153 A Crim R 278
R v Ey (2011) 110 SASR 476

SCC No. 198 of 2008
SCC No. 51 of 2009
SCC No. 319 of 2010
SCC No. 176 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 4 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          SCC No. 198 of 2008
  )          SCC No. 51 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          SCC No. 319 of 2010

SCC No. 176 of 2011
R
V
MATTHEW JAMES SUTHERLAND

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  4 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

Matthew James Sutherland is not unfit to plead.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

The prosecution draw the reasons for this order to the attention of the trial judge so that appropriate special measures can be implemented at trial to ensure that, having regard to the mental impairment of Matthew James Sutherland, a fair trial is ensured.

A fair trial is an essential part of a civilised society. It is also a right to which every person is entitled. In this jurisdiction, that is now mandated by s 21 of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

One of the essential characteristics of a fair trial is that the accused has the mental capacity to defend himself or herself, reaching minimum standards of capacity to understand…

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 Sutherland

Details

AGLC: R v Sutherland [2012] ACTSC 62
Case: [2012] ACTSC 62
Decision Date: May 4, 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sutherland concerns the fitness to plead of Matthew James Sutherland, who has been charged with multiple criminal offences. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was required to determine whether Sutherland is fit to plead, considering his mental impairment and short-term memory loss. The court considered reports from psychiatrists and psychologists, as well as submissions from both the prosecution and the defence. The primary legal issue was whether Sutherland's mental impairment and short-term memory loss rendered him unfit to plead, as defined by section 311 of the Crimes Act. The court found that Sutherland is not unfit to plead, provided that appropriate special measures are implemented at trial to accommodate his mental impairment and ensure a fair trial. The court emphasized the importance of a fair trial and the need for the trial judge to consider provisions such as breaks at frequent intervals and seating Sutherland close to his legal representatives to assist him in following the proceedings.

Orders