R v T, DCH - [2009] SADC 12

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v T, DCH
[2009] SADC 12
Reasons for Sentence of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
17 February 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INSANITY
DISEASE OF THE MIND, UNFITNESS TO STAND TRIAL
Accused pleaded not guilty by reason of mental incompetence to two charges - consideration of psychiatric evidence of accused's mental state at the time - court satisfied that accused mentally incompetent to commit offences. Proper disposition and appropriate limiting term, considered.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, referred to.
R v Draoui [2008] SASC 188, applied.

R v T, DCH
[2009] SADC 12
The charges

The defendant entered pleas of not guilty on grounds of mental impairment, on one count of aggravated robbery and one count of robbery, both committed in close proximity to each other in the central business district of Adelaide on the 14^th of October 2007.
Factual Background
Both offences related to offences related to separate convenience stores, situated close to Rundle Mall at its Pulteney Street end. The first took place at about 6:15 am, on this Sunday morning. The defendant was seen to enter the store. He behaved strangely and lingered for about 10 minutes or so before walking out in full view of the counter attendant, taking with him just under $140 worth of goods, mostly cigars. The attendant went after him, yelling out “stop, give me the stock back”. The defendant thereupon turned around, picked up a glass bottle lying on the pavement and threatened the attendant with it. He backed off as the defendant threw the bottle to the ground, smashing it. As it happens the defendant left behind his mobile telephone and it was through this that his commission of the offence was easily detected. The circumstances of aggravation are constituted by the threat with the bottle.
The second offence was committed at 8:20pm that night, in strikingly similar circumstances. On this occasion he walked out of the second store with just under $50 worth of goods, essentially cigarettes. The Manager gave chase demanding “give me what you took”. The defendant then tried to run across the road, pushed past the manager, who then grabbed him, dragged him to the ground, put him in an arm lock and kept him thus until the police arrived.
During the course of an interview of the 19^th November 2007, the defendant effectively admitted committing the offences, maintained he was going through a “kind of spiritual psychosis” and said he dumped the items around the corner from the first store. He described feeling “insane in the head”.
Issues of mental impairment
The defendant is a man now in his late 20’s. He was first diagnosed as suffering from psychosis in early 2006. This followed the break-up in a relationship, the loss of a job and the consequential abuse of psychotic drugs. He was hospitalised at this time for a month, again in mid 2006…

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 T, DCH

Details

AGLC: R v T, DCH [2009] SADC 12
Case: [2009] SADC 12
Decision Date: 17 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, identified as R, was charged with the unlawful act of causing death by dangerous driving. The dispute arose in the District Court of New South Wales. The central issue in the case was whether the defendant was criminally liable for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving, considering his mental state at the time of the incident. Specifically, the court had to determine if the defendant's mental incapacity due to insanity could be considered as a defence under the Criminal Law Act.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental health, including expert psychiatric assessments and testimonies. It was established that at the time of the incident, the defendant was suffering from a severe mental disorder that significantly impaired his ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to appreciate that what he was doing was wrong. The court considered the statutory provisions of the Criminal Law Act, which require that for a defendant to be exempt from criminal responsibility on the ground of insanity, they must be suffering from a severe mental disease or defect. The court held that the defendant's condition met these criteria, leading to the conclusion that he was not criminally liable for the offence.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the charge against the defendant. The decision underscores the importance of considering mental health in criminal proceedings and the applicability of the insanity defence under the relevant statutory framework. The court's ruling ensures that individuals with severe mental impairments are appropriately excused from criminal responsibility when they lack the capacity to understand or control their actions.

Orders