R v Trinne

[2023] NSWSC 1212

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Trinne [2023] NSWSC 1212

Hearing dates:

9 October 2023

Date of orders:

9 October 2023

Decision date:

09 October 2023

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Dhanji J

Decision:

(1) Pursuant to s 49(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (‘the Act’), the accused, Glenn Raymond Trinne, is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for review.

(2) Pursuant to s 47(2)(b) of the Act, the proceedings on indictment are adjourned pending the determination of the Tribunal.

(3)      Pursuant to s 47(2)(d), I order the accused be remanded in custody.

(4)      The exhibits tendered in the fitness hearing are to be forwarded to the Tribunal.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – fitness to be tried – accused charged with murder – agreement of parties and experts – accused unfit to be tried

Legislation Cited:

Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

R v Presser [1958] VR 45

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Glenn Raymond Trinne (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
B G Campbell (Crown)
S G Apps (Accused)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
James Fuggle Rummery Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s):

2022/122511

Publication restriction:

Nil

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT (REVISED)

1. HIS HONOUR: By an indictment dated 23 May 2023, Glenn Raymond Trinne, (the accused), stands charged on one count of murder. It is alleged by that charge that on or about 26 April 2022 at Kyogle in the State of New South Wales he did murder Graham Priestly. A question has been raised with respect to the accused’s fitness to be tried. The relevant provisions with respect to the issue of fitness to be tried are found in the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the Act), specifically in Part 4 of that Act.

2. The question as to the accused’s fitness was raised by the defence prior to any arraignment of the accused. That occurred before Wilson J in the arraignments list. Her Honour determined, pursuant to s 40 of the Act, that an inquiry with respect to the accused’s fitness should be conducted before the hearing of the proceedings in respect of the offence. That inquiry comes before me today. Pursuant to s 44(1) of the Act, that determination is to be made by me sitting as a judge alone.

3. The issue as to the accused’s fitness is uncontentious as between the Crown and the accused, although I hasten to add that the proceedings are non-adversarial, and I do not mean to suggest that they have been conducted in any sort of adversarial fashion.

4. Given the absence of any issue that the accused is presently unfit, these reasons can be brief. The Crown, on the inquiry, has tendered the indictment, a Crown Case statement dated 3 October 2023, the report of Dr Kerri Eagle of 5 August 2023, and the report of Dr Gerald Chew, dated 7 September 2022. Both Dr Eagle and Dr Chew are respected forensic psychiatrists.

5. While the Crown Case statement sets out a level of detail, the allegation itself can be stated very briefly. The deceased man, Graham Priestly, was 75 years of age. He was dropped off at his unit in Kyogle at about 4.30pm on 25 April 2022. The next morning, he was found dead in his unit having died sometime between being dropped off and being located that morning.

6. It is the Crown case that the accused killed the deceased by striking him to the head with a brick and smothering him. It is the Crown case that prior to that act, the accused, who lived next‑door to the deceased, had expressed grievances about the noise that the deceased would make.

7. The accused initially denied any involvement in the death but subsequently made admissions to an acquaintance and then to the police.

8. The accused was examined by Dr Chew for the purposes of preparing a report. The request to Dr Chew was made by the accused’s lawyers. In his report, Dr Chew set out various matters that he considered and ultimately expressed the view that whilst the accused has a "complex presentation", in his opinion, the most likely primary diagnosis is chronic schizophrenia.

9. The test in relation to unfitness is set out in s 36 of the Act which essentially sets out what was known at common law as the Presser test: see R v Presser [1958] VR 45.

10. Dr Chew expressed the opinion that at the time of his report, the accused did not meet the minimum standards in s 36 of the Act, and was consequently unfit to stand trial.

11. Dr Chew expressed the opinion that it was difficult to predict the accused’s prognosis. He opined that there was a prospect that the accused would respond to medication, and that if this were to be the case, he would expect the accused to become fit within 6 to 12 months.

12. Dr Eagle has provided a more recent report dated 25 August 2023. Dr Eagle was engaged to provide that report by lawyers for the Crown. Dr Eagle set out the results of her interview with the accused and her review of the material. She states:

“I am of the view that at the time of this assessment Mr Trinne could be considered unfit to plead and to be tried. He was unable to demonstrate a sufficient understanding of his options to plead; to exercise the right to challenge jurors; he was not capable of understanding the effect of any evidence given against him; and would have significant difficulty providing any coherent instructions to his legal representatives so as to mount a defence; and he would have difficulty providing a coherent version of events to the Court.”

13. Dr Eagle then set out each of the requirements as set out in s 36 of the Act and provided her opinion with respect to each. It is unnecessary to set out her opinion in that regard. Suffice to say the ultimate result reflects the passage of her reasons to which I have already referred.

14. With respect to his future prognosis, Dr Eagle indicated her opinion that the accused may improve in his mental state, in which case, he may become fit for trial. She notes that he has been at Long Bay Hospital since May of 2023 and is receiving treatment there.

15. She appears to agree with Dr Chew that a trial of clozapine is warranted potentially together with what she describes as “assertive mental health treatment” as a result of which, she states, it is possible, even if not likely, that he might become fit for trial.

16. There is no reason for me to doubt the opinion of the two expert forensic psychiatrists who have provided the opinions to which I have referred to. As a result, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused is currently unfit for trial.

17. I am also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that during the following twelve months the accused may become fit to be tried.

18. As a result of those findings, I make the following orders:

1. Pursuant to s 49(1) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (‘the Act’), the accused, Glenn Raymond Trinne, is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for review.

2. Pursuant to s 47(2)(b) of the Act, the proceedings on indictment are adjourned pending the determination of the Tribunal.

3. Pursuant to s 47(2)(d), I order the accused be remanded in custody.

4. The exhibits tendered in the fitness hearing are to be forwarded to the Tribunal.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 October 2023