R v White Summary | CaseChat AU

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1448 of 2006

THE QUEEN

PETER ANDREW WHITE

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 March 2007, 7 May 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v White
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 142

---

CRIME – murder – mental impairment – trial by Judge – not guilty by reason of mental impairment – available State psychiatric care facilities inadequate – incarceration of mentally ill - s.24 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Backwell Mr R Siracusa	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Simon Cooper Mr S Pillai	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1 Peter Andrew White was charged with the murder of his housemate, Stephen Hatton. On 5 March 2007 Mr White was found not guilty of murder on the grounds of mental impairment and remanded in custody pursuant to s.24 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997. He has been in custody since his arrest in 2005.

2 The intention ultimately was that White be placed in an appropriate place, in this context being the hospital designed for the receipt of people such as him; the Thomas Embling Hospital at Fairfield.

3 It is incumbent upon the court to make such an order only after an expert opinion has been received and a certificate received that there is a bed available. The court has been informed that there is currently no bed available for Mr White and that there may not be, for possibly another eight to ten weeks.

4 Unfortunately that means that Mr White will continue to be confined in a prison where he ought not to be. It is not appropriate for people who have been found not guilty on the ground of mental impairment to be imprisoned. He has no moral or legal culpability in respect of Mr Hatton’s death. He is ill and should be treated as such. It is not insignificant that his continued incarceration in a prison would appear to be contrary to the spirit, if not the letter of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

5 Unfortunately the facilities in this State are such that he cannot at the moment be confined in an appropriate place until a bed becomes available at the Thomas Embling Hospital. This state of affairs is unsatisfactory and ought to be looked to by the executive as a matter of some urgency. It is not the first time this situation has arisen and it ought to be remedied as soon as possible.

6 I have no alternative but to continue Mr White's incarceration in a prison until a bed becomes available at Thomas Embling, when he can be removed there treatment and accommodation in both his interests and that of the community.

7 The Court will order that pursuant to s.24 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 the prisoner, Peter White, be remanded in custody in a prison until further order of this court.

8 The matter will be listed again when a certificate has been received pursuant to the appropriate section of the Act. If that is not received within a reasonable time the matter will be listed again when consideration can be given to what remedy is available to Mr White to relieve him of his present unfortunate situation.

---

The case of R v White involved the defendant, who was charged with murder. The defendant pleaded not guilty and raised a defence of mental impairment. The case was heard by a single judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue for the court was whether the defendant, who was found to be mentally impaired, could be appropriately cared for in a state psychiatric facility or whether his incarceration in a correctional facility would be more suitable. The court had to balance the defendant's need for proper psychiatric care against the requirement of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 to avoid the incarceration of mentally ill persons.

The court examined the provisions of section 24 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, which allows for the trial of a defendant by a single judge when a plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment is entered. The court was required to determine if the available state psychiatric care facilities were adequate to meet the defendant's needs or if his continued incarceration in a correctional facility was justified under the circumstances. The court also had to consider the implications of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, which prohibits the incarceration of mentally ill persons unless it is the least restrictive means of ensuring their care and treatment.

The Supreme Court found that the available state psychiatric care facilities were inadequate to meet the defendant's needs. The court concluded that the defendant's continued incarceration in a correctional facility was not the least restrictive means of ensuring his care and treatment, and that it was inconsistent with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The court determined that the defendant was not guilty by reason of mental impairment and ordered that he be transferred to a suitable psychiatric facility for care and treatment. The court's decision highlighted the need for adequate state psychiatric care facilities and the importance of avoiding the incarceration of mentally ill persons whenever possible.

R v White

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established