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…

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 Watkins

Details

AGLC: R v Watkins [2020] SADC 79
Case: [2020] SADC 79
Decision Date: 25 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of South Australia has declared Robin Kyle Watkins liable to supervision under Part 8A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 in respect of six offences. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate limiting term for the offences and deciding whether Watkins should be detained in a secure forensic mental health facility. The court found that Watkins was not mentally fit to stand trial at the time he entered his guilty pleas and that his mental health issues, particularly his paranoid delusions, had worsened over time. The court concluded that Watkins required ongoing psychiatric intervention and that he was unlikely to engage willingly in treatment if released into the community. The court made a supervision order committing Watkins to detention in a secure forensic mental health facility to undergo continued in-patient treatment. The court fixed a limiting term of 3 years, 7 months and 1 week, backdated to 4 February 2020, under Section 269O(2) of the Act. The court considered the seriousness of the offences, Watkins' mental impairment, and the need to protect the community in reaching its decision.

Orders