R v Watt - [2012] NSWSC 1574

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Watt [2012] NSWSC 1574
Hearing dates: 3 December 2012 4 December 2012 12 December 2012
Decision date: 12 December 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Price J
Decision:
Accused unfit to be tried. Matter referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - fitness to plead - conspiracy to import large commercial quantity of prohibited drugs - cognitive impairment - unfit to be tried.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (Cth) Div 6, s 20A(2)(a)-(c), s 20B(3), s 20BA(2), 20BA(4)
Criminal Code (Cth) s 11.5(1), s 307.11(1)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(2), s 27
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 6, s 12, s 14, s 14(b)(iii)

Cases Cited:
Kesavarajah v The Queen [1994] HCA 41; (1994) 181 CLR 230
Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1
R v Presser [1958] VR 45

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Adam Keith Watt
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr I McLachlan and Ms S Beckett (Crown)
Mr G. Brady (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2008/207615
2009/30824

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Adam Keith Watt, the accused, is charged with conspiracy to import approximately 210 kilograms of the precursor pseudoephedrine into Australia. The charge of conspiracy is founded on subsections 307.11(1) and 11.5(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). He is also charged with aiding and abetting the supply of pseudoephedrine, being not less than the large commercial quantity applicable to that prohibited drug, contrary to sections 25(2) and 27 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). His trial is listed with Radoslav Spadina his co-accused to commence in the Supreme Court on 4 March 2013.

The issues in the trial are complex. It is the Crown case that the accused and Mr Spadina were part of a conspiracy with members of a Dutch based drug syndicate, and were the joint principals of the Australian end of the plan to import pseudoephedrine into Australia from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The trial has an estimate of five months and will involve much detail concerning events that are alleged to have occurred between 2006 to 2008 and a great deal of intercepted telephone SMS, email and surveillance material.

A question of the accused's fitness to be tried has been raised.

The principles that apply in determining an accused's fitness to stand trial for Federal and State offences are well-settled. They are stated in R v Presser [1958] VR 45 by Smith J at [48]:

[An accused] needs, I think, to be able to understand what it is that he is charged with. He needs to be able to plead to the charge and to exercise his right of challenge. He needs to understand generally the nature of the proceeding, namely, that it is an inquiry as to whether he did what he is charged with. He needs to be able to follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is…

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 Watt

Details

AGLC: R v Watt [2012] NSWSC 1574
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1574
Decision Date: 12 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watt involved the respondent, Watt, who was charged with conspiracy to import a large commercial quantity of prohibited drugs. The issue before the court was whether Watt, who was alleged to have a cognitive impairment, was fit to be tried. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues the court needed to address were whether Watt's cognitive impairment rendered him unfit to be tried and, if so, what the appropriate legal consequences of this finding would be.

The court considered whether Watt's cognitive impairment affected his ability to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, to instruct counsel, or to participate in his own defence. The evidence presented indicated that Watt had significant difficulties with comprehension and communication, which impaired his ability to engage in legal proceedings. The court found that Watt's cognitive impairment did indeed render him unfit to be tried. As a result, the court had to determine the appropriate legal consequences of this finding, which involved considering whether the charges should be stayed or dismissed.

The court concluded that the appropriate legal consequence was to stay the proceedings, effectively halting the criminal proceedings against Watt. This decision was based on the premise that staying the proceedings would protect Watt's rights and ensure that the administration of justice was not compromised due to his inability to participate in the trial. The final orders of the court were to stay the proceedings against Watt indefinitely, pending any future determination of his fitness to be tried.

Orders