R v Wasley - [2017] SADC 135

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WASLEY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 135
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Schammer
5 December 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED - DETERMINATION OF ISSUES
Accused charged with one count of persistent sexual exploitation - whether accused mentally unfit to stand trial pursuant to s 269H of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act - accused suffering from Vascular Dementia - neuropsychological assessment and psychiatric examination - whether accused is able to understand or respond rationally to the charge and the allegations upon which it is based - whether accused is able to exercise (or give rational instructions about the exercise of) procedural rights - whether accused able to understand the nature of the proceedings or to follow the evidence during the course of the proceedings.
Held: Accused mentally unfit to stand trial.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269A(1), s 269H, s 269I, s 269M, referred to.
R v Leach [2002] SASC 321; R v Presser [1958] VR 45; Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1; R v Stevens (2010) 107 SASR 456; R v Taylor [2014] SASCFC 112, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED
Accused voluntarily submitted to a record of interview with police - accused not placed under arrest - accused warned as to his right to silence - whether accused understood that right - application for the audio visual recording of the record of interview to be excluded from evidence in the exercise of the fairness discretion.
Held: Application refused. The admission of the audio visual recording of the record of interview into evidence is not unfair to the accused.
Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 75, s 79A; District Court (Criminal) Rules 2014 r 49, referred to.
R v Arnott (2009) 26 VR 490; R v Kageregere [2011] SASC 154; R v D, JE [2017] SADC 83; The King v Lee (1950) 82 CLR 133; R v Pfitzner (1996) 66 SASR 161, considered.

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - SEXUAL OFFENCES
The trial proceeded on the objective elements - accused was the god-father of the complainant's mother - alleged offending over a period spanning eight years.
Held: Objective elements not found proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5, s 20, s 49, s 50, s 56, s 57(2), s 269M(B)(2), referred to.
R v Doyle [1957] SASR 182, considered.

R v WASLEY
[2017] SADC 135
Introduction

Ronald John Wasley is charged on an Information dated 9 November 2015 with one count of persistent sexual exploitation of CF, a person under the age of 17 years, over a period of not less than three days between 11 March 1998 and 11 March 2006 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 Wasley

Details

AGLC: R v Wasley [2017] SADC 135
Case: [2017] SADC 135
Decision Date: 5 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wasley involved an accused charged with one count of persistent sexual exploitation. The court was tasked with determining whether the accused was mentally unfit to stand trial under section 269H of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The accused was diagnosed with Vascular Dementia, and the court was presented with a neuropsychological assessment and psychiatric examination to assess the accused's capacity to understand or respond rationally to the charge and allegations, as well as their ability to exercise procedural rights, understand the nature of the proceedings, and follow the evidence during the trial.

The legal issues before the court included whether the accused's Vascular Dementia rendered them unfit to stand trial, and if so, what the implications of such a finding would be. The court had to consider whether the accused's cognitive impairments affected their ability to engage in the legal process, including understanding the charge, participating in their defence, and following the proceedings.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence provided by the neuropsychological assessment and psychiatric examination. The court found that the accused's Vascular Dementia did indeed significantly impair their cognitive functions, making it unlikely that they could understand the nature of the proceedings or follow the evidence during the trial. The court also noted that the accused's ability to exercise procedural rights or give rational instructions about the exercise of those rights was compromised. Consequently, the court held that the accused was unfit to stand trial, and the matter was adjourned pending further medical and psychological evaluation.

The court's decision underscored the importance of assessing an accused's mental fitness to stand trial, particularly in cases where cognitive impairments are present. The court's ruling in R v Wasley highlights the need for thorough evaluations by qualified professionals to ensure that individuals with significant cognitive impairments are not subjected to trials they are unable to comprehend or participate in meaningfully.

Orders