R v Watkins - [2020] SADC 79

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WATKINS
[2020] SADC 79
Decision of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
25 June 2020
CRIMINAL LAW
The defendant has been declared liable to supervision under part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the Act”) in respect of the offences of contravening a term of an intervention order; aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence; aggravated assault causing harm; two counts of possessing a dangerous article and breach of bail.
Single limiting term of 3 years, 7 months and 1 week fixed under s269O(2) of the Act in respect of all six offences and backdated to 4 February 2020.
Supervision order made under s269O(b)(i) of the Act that the defendant be detained in a secure forensic mental health facility in order that he continue to undergo in-patient treatment.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Part 8A, ss 269O, 269WA(1)(a), 269J, 269K, 269F, 269MA(5)(b), 269Q, 269R, 269T, 269X, 269Z, referred to.
R v Brown [2006] SADC 82, considered.

R v WATKINS
[2020] SADC 79

The defendant, Robin Kyle Watkins, has been declared liable to supervision in respect of six offences under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the Act”).
I have determined that a single limiting period of 3 years, 7 months and 1 week backdated to 4 February 2020 is appropriate in respect of all the matters in relation to which the defendant has been declared liable to supervision under Section 269O of the Act.
These are the reasons for my decision.
Background
Mr Watkins was charged on Information in this court with:
·Contravening a Term of an Intervention Order;
·Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence;
·Aggravated Assault Causing Harm; and
·Two counts of Possess Dangerous Article.
These offences took place in Port Augusta on 17 June 2016 in the context of the defendant’s separation from his then domestic partner, the first victim, NL. The second victim was a friend of NL.
In addition, for reasons I will discuss below, Mr Watkins was later charged with the offence of Fail to Comply Bail Agreement on 15 February 2019.
Chronology
This matter has had a rather slow progress through the court process. It is helpful to set out the chronology of events.
On 16 October 2017, Mr Watkins, who was self-represented at the time, failed to appear for his trial before Justice Blue in Port Augusta. A bench warrant was issued for his arrest and the trial vacated.
On 17 August 2017, Mr Watkins appeared before Judge Chivell in relation to the bench warrant. He was remanded in custody until the call-over for the next Port Augusta circuit.
At the call-over on 18 October 2017 Mr Watkins was again unrepresented. The prosecutor indicated that it might be necessary to order a report as to Mr Watkins’ fitness to stand trial in view of a letter from a psychiatrist with the Country Health SA Local Health Network, Dr Alexander, dated 14 August 2017. That letter indicated Dr Alexander’s opinion that Mr Watkins was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) associated with a paranoid personality disorder. Dr Alexander suggested that Mr Watkins’ problems had been “exacerbated by current stress around the court case” and recommended that proceedings be “suspended until he is able to address his mental health needs”. Mr Watkins disputed the content of that letter saying he had PTSD and nothing else and further indicated that he wished to obtain legal assistance. Arrangements were made for the Legal Services Commission to contact Mr Watkins in jail.
At arraignment day in Port Augusta on 7 November 2017 Mr Watkins indicated that he did not wish to be represented and the lawyer who had received a grant of legal aid to represent him withdrew. When arraigned, Mr Watkins responded by saying “I submit no case to answer” which was recorded as a not guilty plea to each of the charged offences. It became apparent that Mr Watkins had been seen by a psychiatrist whilst in jail. Mr Watkins had tried unsuccessfully to get a report. The matter was adjourned to enable enquiries to be made as to the identity of that doctor.
On 10 November 2017, Mr Watkins appeared unrepresented before Judge McEwen. His Honour ordered a short report from Dr William Brereton from James Nash House as to whether Mr Watkins’ fitness to stand trial needed to be explored before the court could proceed to trial in circumstances where Mr Watkins wished to proceed and represent himself. Dr Brereton subsequently prepared a report dated 17 November 2017 which indicated that the defendant’s fitness to stand trial ought to be explored.
On 23 November 2017, Mr Watkins again appeared unrepresented before Judge McEwen. His Honour ordered that Mr Watkins undergo an examination by psychiatrist or other appropriate expert in relation to Mr Watkins’ mental competence to commit the offence pursuant to s269WA(1)(a) of the Act and further ordered an investigation into Mr Watkins’ mental fitness to stand trial under s269J of the Act. His Honour further ordered that the transcript of the proceedings be sent to the Legal Services Commission for a bail application and granted liberty to Mr Watkins to have the matter called on for a bail application.
On 19 December 2017 Dr Craig Raeside, a forensic psychiatrist at James Nash House provided a report indicating that he did not support a mental competence defence. Dr Raeside said that the diagnosis was unclear and that, whilst Mr Watkins had paranoid and persecutory ideas that appeared to border on the delusional, he was fit to plead. There was some indication that antipsychotic medication helped to decrease the intensity with which he expressed those views. Dr Raeside noted that Mr Watkins’ paranoia had been aggravated at times by illicit drug use.
On 18 January 2018, Mr Watkins, who was then legally represented, made an application for bail. Bail was granted on that date.
On 19 February 2018 Mr Watkins appeared, legally represented, for trial in Port Augusta before Judge Davison. He entered pleas of guilty to two counts of possessing a dangerous article and the trial proceeded in relation to the remaining three counts on the information; contravening a term of an intervention order, aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and aggravated assault causing harm. A mistrial was declared on 21 February 2018. The matter was then made remanet to the April circuit in Port Augusta.
On 18 April 2018, Mr Watkins appeared, legally represented, for trial before me. I was informed that the matter had resolved. Mr Watkins was rearraigned. He entered pleas of guilty to the remaining three charges and the matter was remanded for submissions to Tuesday 12 June 2018 in Adelaide.
Owing to my illness the matter was adjourned to Monday 16 July 2018 for submissions. On that occasion defence counsel sought leave to withdraw from the file for himself and his instructor. Leave was granted. Mr Watkins indicated that he wished to withdraw his pleas of guilty. The application was opposed by the prosecution. During the hearing, it became apparent that Mr Watkins was exhibiting symptoms of mental illness. Mr Watkins was unwilling to take any action in relation to this as he did not acknowledge any issue. I therefore remanded Mr Watkins in custody until Friday 27 July 2018. I ordered a report from Prison Health Services as to Mr Watkins’ current mental health status for the next hearing. I further directed that Mr Watkins’ matter be brought to the attention of the Legal Services Commission with a view to securing alternative representation for him.
On 20 July 2018, a brief report from Prison Health indicated that Mr Watkins had a range of prior diagnoses including delusional disorder with paranoia and PTSD but that he had not yet been assessed by a psychologist or psychiatrist.
On 27 July 2018, Mr Watkins was represented by the Legal Services Commission who indicated that he wished to pursue his application to withdraw the guilty pleas and sought a time for that argument to occur.
On 7 August 2018, defence counsel made an application for a report into Mr Watkins’ fitness to instruct and foreshadowed an application for bail. I ordered addendum psychiatric reports under s269K and s269F of the Act to address the defendant’s mental condition. I further ordered a Bail Enquiry report and a Home Detention Bail Enquiry report.
On 16 August 2018, I refused Mr Watkins’ application for bail in the light of the bail reports.
On 13 September 2018, Dr Raeside provided the further psychiatric report ordered in relation to Mr Watkins under s269K and s269F. Dr Raeside noted that, in his previous report, he had indicated that the diagnosis was unclear. In this report Dr Raeside said that Mr Watkins either had a delusional (paranoid) disorder or a paranoid coping style when stressed. Dr Raeside said that, whatever the diagnosis, it was apparent that Mr Watkins was unable to provide meaningful and adequate instructions to his defence counsel and that he was unfit to instruct or stand trial. Dr Raeside said it was unclear when Mr Watkins would regain his fitness but thought it unlikely that he would do so within the next 12 months.
On 5 October 2018, both prosecution and defence counsel made submissions based on Dr Raeside’s report. It was put on behalf of the prosecution that it would be helpful if Dr Raeside addressed the question of Mr Watkins’ fitness as at April 2018 when he entered his pleas. The prosecutor indicated that if Mr Watkins was unfit at that point it was likely that the Director would concede Mr Watkins’ application to strike out the plea. In the light of this, defence counsel applied for an adjournment to consider various issues, including whether Mr Watkins could waive legal professional privilege in relation to the discussions he had with his counsel and solicitor at the time of entering the pleas for the purpose of providing this information to Dr Raeside.
The matter was listed for hearing on 12 October 2018 when defence counsel requested an adjournment to further consider what information could be provided to Dr Raeside.
On 8 November 2018, the issue of what information could be provided to Dr Raeside having been resolved, I ordered an addendum report directed specifically to the issue of Mr Watkins’ fitness as at April 2018 when he entered his pleas of guilty to the charged offence. Defence counsel again raised the question of bail. Accordingly, I ordered a Bail Enquiry report relating to the issue of how Mr Watkins’ medical condition could be monitored and treated in the community.
On 27 November 2018, Dr Raeside provided his addendum report in which he stated his opinion based on the material he identified in his report that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Watkins would have been unfit to instruct his legal counsel at the time of his trial in April 2018. This was due to a mental impairment with paranoid delusions such that Mr Watkins was unable to understand, or rationally respond to, the charges or the allegations on which the charges were based; and he was unable to exercise or give rational instructions about the exercise of his procedural rights; and he was unable to understand the nature of the proceedings or to follow the evidence or the course of proceedings due to misinterpretation arising from the weight of his delusions.
On 6 December 2018, the prosecutor conceded Mr Watkins application to withdraw his guilty pleas based on Dr Raeside’s report. Accordingly, I found that, considering the report of Dr Raeside dated 27 November 2018, the defendant was not fit to enter his pleas of guilty. I therefore ordered that Mr Watkins’ guilty pleas entered on 19 February 2018 and 18 April 2018 be set aside. Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the defendant agreed that, in light of the expert reports, it was appropriate to dispense with the investigation into Mr Watkins’ mental fitness to stand trial. Mr Blake, who represents Mr Watkins, made this concession in exercise of his independent discretion under s. 269W of the Act. I was satisfied based on the material before me that Mr Watkins was mentally unfit to stand trial and recorded a finding of that effect under s.269MA(5)(b) of the Act.
I proceeded to consider whether the objective elements of each offence had been proved. Mr Blake, again exercising his discretion under s. 269W, agreed the evidence contained in the declarations. Having considered the content of those declarations, I was satisfied that the objective elements of each offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt. I declared Mr Watkins liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act and ordered reports under ss. 269Q, 269R and 269T.
On the application of his counsel I granted Mr Watkins’ application for Home Detention bail including a condition that Mr Watkins be fitted with an electronic monitoring bracelet. The matter was adjourned to 20 February 2019 for submissions.
Dr Raeside provided the ss. 269Q and 269T dated 2 February 2019. He indicated that Mr Watkins’ paranoid beliefs had worsened over recent times and were now significantly impacting his mental functioning. In Dr Raeside’s opinion, without psychiatric intervention, Mr Watkins’ issues would worsen over time resulting in significant risk of further offending, or at least conflict with police.
At the request of the prosecution the matter was listed on 18 February 2019. The court was informed that on Friday 15 February 2019 Mr Watkins had cut off his home detention bracelet and the police were unable to locate him. Prosecution applied for Mr Watkins’ bail to be revoked and sought a warrant for his arrest. I granted the application revoking Mr Watkins’ bail and issued a warrant for his arrest.
Mr Watkins was not arrested on the bench warrant until 12 months later. He appeared before me on 28 February 2020 on which occasion I ordered a report under s269T(2)(a) to update the previous report provided by Dr Raeside dated 2 February 2019. The matter was adjourned to Thursday 28 May 2020 for submissions.
Dr Raeside provided the updated a269T report on 16 March 2020. In summary, Dr Raeside said that there was no change in Mr Watkins’ overall mental state since his last report. The fact that he has remained the same over the last two to three years is consistent with a diagnosis of underlying delusional disorder. Dr Raeside considered that Mr Watkins’ paranoia may have been intensified by his ongoing use of “ice” whilst in the community. The prognosis is poor as delusional disorders are not generally responsive to antipsychotic medication but there is a possibility that Mr Watkins’ paranoia might decrease “dramatically” with appropriate antipsychotic medication. In this case Dr Raeside recommends a trial of Clozapine. Dr Raeside noted that there was no likelihood that Mr Watkins would comply with any treatment in the community. Accordingly, Dr Raeside recommended that such treatment be undertaken in James Nash House.
Mr Watkins was charged with failing to comply with his home detention bail agreement by removing his home detention bracelet on 15 February 2019. At the request of counsel, I called for the Magistrates’ Court file relating to that charge. The file contained a report prepared by Dr Jayawant, a Consultant Psychiatrist at James Nash House dated 11 February 2020, that had been ordered by the Presiding Magistrate. The report, indicated that on 5 February 2020, Mr Watkins had been admitted into hospital pursuant to a s.269X order due to his mental state in court after his arrest. He was transferred to James Nash House on 7 February 2020. Dr Jayawant stated that Mr Watkins’ psychosis had been left untreated since he had absconded and that he was at risk of further deterioration of his mental state if his symptoms remained untreated.
A report dated 27 May 2020 was prepared by Anna D’Alessandro, the Manager of the Forensic Court Service, pursuant to s. 269R and 269Z of the Act. Such reports deal with the views of the victims and the next of kin of the defendants. The report indicated that one of the victims, NL, had nothing to say in relation to the matter and that the second victim, SG, could not be located. The report also stated that the defendant’s mother hoped that the matter could be finalised as soon as possible and wanted her son to be released from custody.
On 28 May 2020, I ordered a short addendum report to address Mr Watkins’ competence to commit the offence of failing to comply with his bail agreement and his fitness to plead in relation to that offence.
I received a further report from Dr Raeside dated 8 June 2020, which offered the opinion that Mr Watkins was not mentally competent to commit the offence of failing to comply with his bail agreement and nor was he fit to plead to that offence or to stand trial. Dr Raeside said that Mr Watkins’ overall mental state remained unchanged although, in some respects it had been escalated with Mr Watkins’ commencing a hunger strike in response to the “George Floyd” incident and Minneapolis riots that he saw on television. This appears relevant to an essential theme of Mr Watkins’ paranoia concerning police behaviour towards him and his treatment in the criminal justice system. Dr Raeside’s prognosis and treatment recommendations remained the same.
On 17 June 2020, Ms D’Alessandro, the Manager of the Forensic Court Service, provided an addendum report pursuant to s. 269R and 269Z of the Act. In that report, she confirmed that she remained unable to contact SG but had been contacted by NL indicating that she had been in hospital when previously spoken to but now wished to convey some information to the court. NL said that she was in favour of Mr Watkins being placed on a mental health plan rather than “having to do his time in prison”. NL said that “under it all” she believed Mr Watkins was a decent person who was “never a security threat to me before the incident few weeks (sic) prior to assaulting my friend [SG]”. SG did however wish to maintain the intervention order for peace of mind and have some additional non-contact conditions included in any licence conditions that might be imposed.
On 19 June 2020, the Director of Public Prosecutions conceded that Mr Watkins was not mentally competent to commit the offence of breaching his bail agreement nor was he fit to stand trial. Counsel for Mr Watkins, exercising his discretion under s. 269W, agreed that the objective elements of the offences were established in the evidence. I was satisfied that the objective elements of the offence are proved beyond reasonable doubt and declared Mr Watkins not guilty of the offence of breaching his bail agreement. I also declared him liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Act. I declined to order further reports under ss. 269Q, 269R and 269T as I considered that the relevant issues were adequately covered by the reports ordered under those sections for the substantive offending.
The statutory scheme
Section 269O of the Act provides that a court by which a person is declared liable to supervision may release the defendant unconditionally, make a supervision order committing the defendant to detention or release the defendant on a licence with conditions decided by the court and specified in the licence.
Section 269O(2) requires that if a court makes a supervision order it must fix a limiting term equivalent to the period of imprisonment or supervision (or the aggregate period of imprisonment and supervision) that would have been appropriate if the defendant had been convicted of the relevant offences. Section 269O (2) further authorises the fixing of a single limiting term in respect of all matters in relation to which the defendant has been declared liable to supervision.[1]
[1] R. v Brown [2006] SADC 82

The Court must have regard to all matters that would usually be relevant to the fixing of a sentence except matters that are based upon or which arose out of the defendant’s mental impairment. The limiting term must be fixed by reference to the head sentence of imprisonment that would have been appropriate and not the non-parole period. Furthermore, the court is obliged to have regard to the matters specified in s.269T (1) of the Act.
The defendant’s personal circumstances and mental condition
Mr Watkins is 56 years of age. He identifies as a Torres Strait Islander. He was born and raised near Ceduna. He had a happy and stable childhood.
At school, Mr Watkins was a below average student. He left at the age of 17. He then worked as a fruit picker and, later, on the oilrigs. At the age of 25, Mr Watkins ran a sheep station with his father. However, after being charged with cultivating cannabis and spending 8 months in custody, he left this role and worked as a rubber liner in Roxby Downs and then as a spray painter in a shipyard in Port Lincoln.
At the age of 42, Mr Watkins moved to Port Augusta and began working on the railways. However, after he suffered a back injury and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder from an alleged police assault, he was unable to successfully return to work. He has been in receipt of a Disability Support Pension ever since.
Mr Watkins has had three significant relationships, all lasting between 5 to 7 years. Of relevance, Mr Watkins was in a relationship with NL for approximately 2 years. He also has ongoing contact with his two children from previous relationships; a boy and a girl, aged 23 and 25.
Mr Watkins’ antecedent report indicates that he has a number of prior convictions. Most of his offending is minor in nature. However, he has served a period of imprisonment for possessing cannabis for sale and manufacturing a controlled substance. He has also been convicted for hindering police and various firearms charges.
Mr Watkins has been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD but, of more relevance to the current matter, as outlined in Dr Raeside’s various reports he is currently suffering a delusional (paranoid) disorder. According to the medical reports his mental health issues date back to at least 2012 but possibly as far back as 2006. Mr Watkins has a well-documented history of persecutory, grandiose and bizarre delusions involving government, the courts and the criminal justice system. His psychosis has proved resistant to treatment over the years and Mr Watkins is not compliant with treatment when in the community being of the view that he has no mental health condition beyond PTSD. He also has a history of intermittent drug use including methamphetamine, MDMA and ecstasy which exacerbates his paranoia.
The limiting term
It is necessary to fix a limiting term under s269O by reference to the head sentence that would have been appropriate if Mr Watkins had been convicted of each of the offences for which the objective elements have been established. Separate consideration is required of the factual circumstances of each of the charged offences and whether the terms of imprisonment would have been concurrent or cumulative.
The Information dated 16 October 2017 charges 5 offences committed on 16 June 2016 and 17 June 2016. The maximum penalties for each of these offences can be summarised as follows:
·Contravening a Term of an Intervention Order: the maximum penalty is a $10,000 fine or 2 years imprisonment;
·Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence; the maximum penalty is life imprisonment;
·Aggravated Assault Causing Harm: the maximum penalty is 4 years imprisonment;
·Two counts of Possess a Dangerous Article each attract a maximum penalty of a $7,500 fine or 18 months imprisonment.
The Information of a member of the police force dated 15 February 2019 charges a further offence of Failing to Comply with Bail Agreement. The maximum penalty for this offence is a $10,000 fine or 2 years imprisonment.
The circumstances of the offences
The first five offences took place on 16 - 17 June 2016. NL, was Mr Watkins’ former domestic partner. NL had an Intervention Order against Mr Watkins since April 2015. The Intervention Order prevented Mr Watkins from contacting NL or attending at her address.
On 16 June 2016, Mr Watkins called NL and sent her several text messages. NL blocked his number. Mr Watkins then called NL’s father and informed him that NL had a large debt and that he would send two men to ‘bash’ her. NL accordingly unblocked Mr Watkins’ phone number. Mr Watkins then sent NL several text messages, including one where he stated, “don’t worry u will be in that COLD DARK PLACE SOON… ps keep smiling I am”. This text message prompted NL to attend the Port Augusta police station to report Mr Watkins.
Whilst NL was at the police station, Mr Watkins attended her home and entered the residence without NL’s permission. SG, a friend of NL, was at the house by herself. When Mr Watkins entered, he was yelling “Oi where’s my fucking money, I’m going to kill your fucking mother, where’s [NL]?.” Mr Watkins approached SG holding an ‘octopus’ strap. SG feared that Mr Watkins would use the strap to strangle her. He then demanded to know where NL was and asked SG for $200. When SG did not respond, Mr Watkins produced a plastic syringe and sprayed her in the face with a brown liquid, causing her skin to burn and her vision to become impaired. SG felt her way to the bathroom and washed her face. When her vision returned she realised that Mr Watkins had left. She contacted NL who was still at the police station. The incident was immediately reported to police, who attended NL’s address and determined that the substance in the syringe was a form of homemade capsicum spray. SG was subsequently treated by ambulance officers. She suffered no lasting physical effects.
That same day, at approximately 7:30pm, police attended Mr Watkins’ address and he was placed under arrest. Police conducted a search of the property and located, in the glovebox of Mr Watkins’ vehicle, a syringe filled with a brown liquid which smelt like pepper and chilli and a further syringe filled with the same liquid in the kitchen pantry.
The victim impact statement by SG makes it plain that this was, not surprisingly, a terrifying incident for her. She said she had “never felt fear like this in my life” she described suffering from panic attacks and anxiety and says that she is nervous all the time.
NL has provided two victim impact statements, one on 13 September 2018 and the other on 19 June 2020. NL appears aggrieved that she has been made to be a victim in this matter. She considers SG to be the true victim and herself a witness. In her first victim impact statement, NL said that she was hypervigilant and had problems sleeping. She has taken medication for anxiety. Her involvement in this incident and the subsequent court proceedings has, it is plain, had an adverse effect upon NL. Given what she said in her most recent victim impact statement and to Ms D’Alessandro, it seems that NL has, to her credit, managed to come to terms with what happened and that she takes a compassionate view of Mr Watkins and his actions. It is however clear that NL remains somewhat fearful of Mr Watkins given that she has installed cameras and a security system at her home and wishes to avoid future contact with him.
Mr Watkins’ telephone contact with NL and subsequent attendance at NL’s house, was a clear breach of the Intervention Order. It seems that Mr Watkins went to NL’s house with the intention of confronting her about a financial matter and, in her absence, chose to assault SG. His entry into the house without NL’s permission through an unlocked side door armed with at least one syringe containing homemade capsicum spray is, particularly in the context of the text messages addressed to NL, troubling. The violence exhibited towards SG, effectively an innocent bystander, was totally unacceptable. These offences are serious examples of their type. The location of two other syringes containing capsicum spray is also of concern.
On 17 December 2018, Mr Watkins entered into a bail agreement with home detention conditions in the District Court of South Australia. Mr Watkins cut off his home detention bracelet and absconded. In his report dated 16 March 2020, Dr Raeside said that Mr Watkins stated that “I cut off my bracelet because I was not going to stand around whilst the corrupt courts decided what to do.” In his report dated 8 June 2020, Dr Raeside says that Mr Watkins’ actions in cutting off his home detention bracelet appeared to be a combination of believing that he had been punished enough, practical concerns in relation to his father’s dementia and terminal cancer and his general disregard and lack of respect for the law.
Disposition
The paramount consideration of the court in determining whether to release a defendant under Division IV of the Act, or the conditions of a licence must be to protect the safety of the community. That consideration outweighs the principle that restrictions on a defendant’s freedom and personal autonomy should be kept to a minimum.[2]
[2] S269(N)(i) of the Act
I have carefully considered the various psychiatric reports. The detailed reports provided by Dr Raeside over a lengthy period of time make it plain that the experts do not recommend release on licence at this stage. In particular, in Dr Raeside’s report of 8 June 2020 it is clear that, whilst Mr Watkins’ overall mental state is essentially unchanged, it has in some respects escalated with his recent hunger strike prompted by protests in the USA which coincide with a theme of his delusions namely being treated poorly by police and the criminal justice system. Dr Raeside considers that a trial of an anti-psychotic medication Clozapine would be particularly useful if Mr Watkins would accept this. It is plain from Dr Raeside’s report that Mr Watkins requires ongoing psychiatric intervention but is unlikely to engage willingly in the community.
In light of the material before me therefore I consider it appropriate to make a supervision order committing Mr Watkins to detention in a secure forensic mental health facility in order that he undergo continued in-patient treatment as recommended. I make this order under s269O(b)(i).
As indicated above, it is necessary to fix a limiting term under s269O by reference to the head sentence that would have been appropriate if Mr Watkins had been convicted of each of the offences for which the objective elements have been established.
I have had regard to the matters set out in s.11 of the Sentencing Act 2017 excepting those impacted by Mr Watkins’ mental impairment. General deterrence is a relevant consideration given the concern about domestic violence and breaches of intervention orders in our community however, given Mr Watkins’ mental impairment, considerations of general and personal deterrence have less relevance than they otherwise would. The same is true of the breach of bail given that it was, in the main, caused by Mr Watkins’ paranoid beliefs relating to the justice system. Given these factors, there is considerable artificiality about setting penalties that would have been imposed in this matter had Mr Watkins been convicted of these offences.
If Mr Watkins been convicted of the five offences on 17 June 2016 I would have imposed a single penalty of 4 years under section 26 of the Criminal Law Sentencing Act as it was effectively one course of action. I would have imposed a penalty of 3 months for the breach of bail on 15 February 2019 to be served cumulative upon the sentence for the June 2016 offences.
Mr Watkins spent time in custody from 17 October 2017 to 18 January 2018 and from 17 July 2018 to 7 December 2018; he is entitled to a credit of seven months and three weeks for that time.
Accordingly, I consider that an appropriate limiting term is 3 years, 7 months and 1 week. In addition, he has been in custody since 4 February 2020, I will backdate the limiting term to that date.