R v Toki, Martin - [2009] NSWDC 186

CITATION: R v Toki, Martin [2009] NSWDC 186

HEARING DATE(S): 12/02/09, 16/02/09, 17/02/09, 18/02/09, 19/02/09, 20/02/09, 23/02/09 and 24/02/09

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 April 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Count 1 (8/07/07): Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness.
Count 2 (30/08/07): Not Guilty
Count 3 (26/09/07): Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness.
In regards to count 1 and 2. HH ordered Mr Toki to be placed in a mental health hospital.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Judge alone trial - malicious damage by fire (x3) - sentenced prisoner - fires set in cells - defence concede fire - issues - causation - mental health of accused at time of fire - findings - fires in two cells ignited by accused - psychological profile on date of each fire assessed - mental illness defence made out in 2 charges - finding - punitive approach of depreivation of property and priviledges by custodial authorities exacerbated forces of accused's mental deterioration.

PARTIES: Regina
Martin Tuamuri Toki

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/0765

COUNSEL: Crown: M Fox - Crown Prosecutor
Accused: S Egan - Public Defender

SOLICITORS: Mr M. Slattery - O.D.P.P.
M.D. Walsh, Goulburn

1. Martin Toki is a sentenced prisoner. While the details of his offence are not before the court, what is before the court is that he is serving a very substantial sentence. He was born in the Cook Islands forty two years ago. From there he moved to New Zealand, aged six and to Australia in his early teenage years. Some time after he commenced his sentence, he was shifted to the segregation unit at the Goulburn Correctional Centre. He is housed in the High Risk Management Unit (HRMU). He told Dr Neilson, “I have been isolated for seven years...in segregation for six years...including four years straight”.

2. Dr Neilson noted Toki was unable to give a coherent account of why he had been kept in isolation. The Crown has not sought to dispute that part of the history given by Toki to Dr Neilson. It was during this later period, of segregation that four fires occurred in cells occupied by Toki. The Crown has charged him with three counts of malicious damage by means of fire the structures, fixtures and contents of the cell he was occupying. The first offence is alleged to have occurred on 8 July 2006 in cell 7(the Cell 7 fire). The second on 30 August 2006 in cell 2(the Cell 2 fire). And the third on 26 September 2007 in cell 12(the Cell 12 fire). To each of these charges, he has pleaded not guilty. He has elected to be tried by judge alone. His election agreed to by the prosecution is exhibit A. In those circumstances, the functions of the trial judge and the functions of the jury fall to me. I must determine the facts of the case. I must also remind myself of the relevant principles of law that must be applied. Bearing in mind the plea…

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 Toki, Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Toki, Martin [2009] NSWDC 186
Case: [2009] NSWDC 186
Decision Date: 16 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Toki, Martin involved a trial where the accused was charged with three counts of malicious damage by fire committed while he was a sentenced prisoner in custody. The incidents took place in three separate cells where fires were set. The trial was conducted before a judge sitting alone in the relevant court. The primary issues for the court were to determine whether the accused was responsible for the fires, and if so, whether he was guilty of the charges or if he had a defence of mental illness at the time of the offences.

The legal issues centred around the causation of the fires and the accused's mental health at the time of the incidents. The defence argued that the accused was suffering from a mental illness, which impaired his responsibility for the acts. The prosecution needed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally caused the fires. The court had to assess the evidence presented regarding the accused's mental state on the dates of the fires and determine whether the defence of mental illness was applicable to any of the charges.

The court found that the accused was responsible for setting the fires in two of the cells. However, it was established that the accused suffered from a mental illness at the time of the fires, which was a mitigating factor. The psychological profile of the accused on the dates of each fire was assessed, and it was determined that the defence of mental illness was made out for two of the charges. The court concluded that the punitive measures taken by the custodial authorities, which involved deprivation of property and privileges, exacerbated the forces of the accused's mental deterioration. Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on the grounds of mental illness for two of the charges. In relation to the other charge, the accused was also found not guilty.

The orders of the court were that the accused was found not guilty on count 1 (8 July 2007) and count 2 (30 August 2007) on the grounds of mental illness. For count 3 (26 September 2007), the accused was found not guilty on the same grounds. In addition, the judge ordered that the accused be placed in a mental health hospital in relation to counts 1 and 2.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1 (8/07/07): Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness.

Count 2 (30/08/07): Not Guilty

Count 3 (26/09/07): Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness.

In regards to count 1 and 2. HH ordered Mr Toki to be placed in a mental health hospital.

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.

CITATION:	R v Toki, Martin [2009] NSWDC 186
HEARING DATE(S):	12/02/09, 16/02/09, 17/02/09, 18/02/09, 19/02/09, 20/02/09, 23/02/09 and 24/02/09
JUDGMENT DATE:	16 April 2009
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Count 1 (8/07/07): Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness. Count 2 (30/08/07): Not Guilty Count 3 (26/09/07): Not Guilty on the grounds of mental illness. In regards to count 1 and 2. HH ordered Mr Toki to be placed in a mental health hospital.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Judge alone trial - malicious damage by fire (x3) - sentenced prisoner - fires set in cells - defence concede fire - issues - causation - mental health of accused at time of fire - findings - fires in two cells ignited by accused - psychological profile on date of each fire assessed - mental illness defence made out in 2 charges - finding - punitive approach of depreivation of property and priviledges by custodial authorities exacerbated forces of accused's mental deterioration.
PARTIES:	Regina Martin Tuamuri Toki
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/0765
COUNSEL:	Crown: M Fox - Crown Prosecutor Accused: S Egan - Public Defender
SOLICITORS:	Mr M. Slattery - O.D.P.P. M.D. Walsh, Goulburn