R v Wahlstedt - [2003] SADC 172

R v JOHN EDWARD WAHLSTEDT
[2003] SADC 172
Judge Rice
Criminal
Introduction

In this matter I have undertaken an investigation, pursuant to Division 3 of Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (CLCA), to ascertain whether the accused is unfit to stand trial. I decided that the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial was to be considered first (s.269M CLCA). I accept that Part 8A provides a code for dealing with issues of mental fitness to stand trial and mental competence to commit an offence: Question of Law Reserved (No. 1 of 1997) (1997) 70 SASR 251 at 252.
There is a presumption in favour of the accused’s fitness to stand trial unless it is established by the accused, on the balance of probabilities, that he is mentally unfit to stand trial (ss.269I, 269MA(3) CLCA).
Only a little needs to be said about the charges and alleged facts. The accused is charged on an Information dated 6th March, 2000 with three counts of indecent assault (s.56 CLCA) and five counts of unlawful sexual intercourse (s.49(3) CLCA). He was committed for trial on 2nd February, 2000.
The charges relate to events that are alleged to have occurred between about the beginning of 1983 and November, 1988. The complainant is now aged 31 years. At the times to which the charges relate, she was aged between about 10 to 15 years. Put very generally, it is alleged by the complainant that she was sexually abused by her mother’s former de facto partner. The charges are said to represent a course of conduct by the accused towards the complainant. Apart from that bare summary, I have not had regard to the alleged facts of the case. Whatever the accused may have said to the police would presumably be relevant at the trial, but the investigation that I have undertaken must relate to the accused’s fitness to stand trial at the time of trial.
It is only stating the obvious to say that these alleged events occurred a long time ago. It would appear that the allegations first arose in early 1999. It is well-known to the law that allegations of that age are difficult to prove. It is equally well-known that it is difficult to mount a defence to such charges when they arise over a decade after the events are alleged to have happened and are made without warning. Often no more may be possible than a blanket denial that any such events occurred. The ability of a normal person to recollect specific occasions that long ago, even if they occurred, is very difficult. Rarely is an alibi able to be put forward and it would only be in an extraordinary case that forensic evidence would be available to anyone. There are a range of problems when allegations relate to a time far removed from the present, not least of which in the present case is the accused’s physical and mental condition.
Legislation and its interpretation
It is convenient at…

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 Wahlstedt

Details

AGLC: R v Wahlstedt No. DCCRM-00-106 [2003] SADC 172
Case: [2003] SADC 172
Decision Date: 13 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wahlstedt, the accused, John Edward Wahlstedt, faces charges of indecent assault and unlawful sexual intercourse. The court was tasked with determining whether the accused is fit to stand trial, given his mental and physical health conditions. The primary legal issue was to ascertain whether Wahlstedt's mental processes were so disordered or impaired that he could not understand the charge, respond rationally to the allegations, exercise procedural rights, or follow the proceedings. The court considered the statutory provisions under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935, and the common law test for fitness to stand trial, which includes the ability to understand the nature of the charge, follow the proceedings, and make a defence. The court also examined the meaning of "make a defence or answer the charge," which includes the ability to give evidence if the accused so elects.

After reviewing the medical evidence and expert opinions, the court concluded that Wahlstedt, while on the cusp of being unfit, had not demonstrated that he was mentally unfit for trial. The court considered the proposed trial arrangements, including limited sitting hours and breaks, which would accommodate his conditions. The court found that with these arrangements, Wahlstedt had the capacity to follow the proceedings and give evidence, albeit in a potentially slow and tiring manner. The court required questioning to be conducted with sensitivity to his health conditions.

Orders