R v Webber - [2013] NSWSC 870

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Webber [2013] NSWSC 870
Hearing dates: 28 June 2013
Decision date: 28 June 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1. I find that the Accused Geoffrey Webber is unfit to be tried for the offence of the murder of Luke Aaron Robins on 2 May 2012;
2. In accordance with s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, I refer this matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
3. Pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of that Act, I remand the Accused in custody pending the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s 16 of that Act.
4. I direct the Court Registry to provide the following documentation to the Tribunal:
a. A copy of this finding.
b. A copy of any orders made for detention or bail.
c. A transcript of these proceedings.
d. A copy of the Crown papers tendered at this enquiry which include:
i. A copy of any psychiatric reports tendered to the Court during these proceedings, and
ii. The Crown Case Statement.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - fitness to plead or be tried - charge of murder - Accused suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - whether Accused satisfies the requirements that he be able to give instructions and understand what his defence was - Accused unfit to be tried.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230
Ngatayi v R (1980) 147 CLR 1
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Robinson v R [2008] NSWCCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Geoffrey Webber (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
H Baker (Crown)
C Loukas SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/140771

Judgment

Geoffrey Webber, the Accused, is charged with one count of murder contrary to s 18(1)A of the Crimes Act 1900 in relation to the death of Luke Aaron Robins on 2 May 2012 at Brookvale. The question of the fitness of the Accused to be tried having been raised, this is an inquiry under the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 whether the Accused is unfit to be tried for the offence of murder. I note that under s 6 of the Act findings are to be on the balance of probabilities.

The Crown case statement discloses that at about 11.30 on Wednesday 2 May the Deceased, who was aged 24, was sitting on a seat at the south bound bus stop on Pittwater Road, Brookvale, opposite Warringah Mall; he was waiting for a bus to Sydney City where he was to pick up his motor vehicle which he had left there the previous night. The Accused who was aged 25 was standing near him. They did not know each other.

Witnesses who were sitting at the north bound bus terminal on the opposite side of Pittwater Road then saw the Deceased and the Accused standing 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 Webber

Details

AGLC: R v Webber [2013] NSWSC 870
Case: [2013] NSWSC 870
Decision Date: 28 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Webber, the accused, Mr Webber, was charged with murder. The dispute centred on Mr Webber's fitness to be tried due to his mental health condition, specifically paranoid schizophrenia. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether Mr Webber satisfied the criteria for fitness to be tried, namely, if he could give instructions to his legal representatives and understand the nature of his defence.

The court considered whether Mr Webber had the capacity to follow his counsel's advice, comprehend the evidence presented, and participate in his defence in a meaningful way. The medical evidence indicated that Mr Webber's condition severely impaired his ability to engage with the proceedings in a rational and coherent manner. The court also examined if there were any therapeutic options that could improve his fitness to be tried. Ultimately, the court determined that Mr Webber was unfit to be tried because his mental condition rendered him unable to participate in his defence effectively.

The court held that, given Mr Webber's lack of understanding and communication capabilities, he did not meet the legal requirements for fitness to be tried. Consequently, the trial was stayed, and the matter was referred back to the mental health authorities for further assessment and potential treatment. The court made no orders regarding the substantive charge of murder but mandated a review of Mr Webber's fitness to be tried at a future date.

Orders