R v Williams (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Williams (No 2)

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 181

Hearing Dates:

8-9 June, 8 September 2021; 14 April, 19-20 July 2022

DecisionDate:

20 July 2022

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

1.     Ms Williams is found not guilty because of mental impairment of the offences of aggravated burglary and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

2.     Ms Williams is ordered to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act 2015.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Judgment – judge alone trial – special verdict because of mental impairment

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 308, 323, 324

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 27, 28

Cases Cited:

R v McIver; R v Williams [2021] ACTSC 227

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Julieann Frances Williams (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

B Morrisroe (Crown)

J Tyler-Stott and D McMahon (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Ken Cush & Associates (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 279 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

1. This matter commenced as a trial of co-accused, being Ms Williams (the accused now before the Court) and Mr Anthony McIver. In a decision given on 9 September 2021 I acquitted Mr McIver (R v McIver; R v Williams [2021] ACTSC 227).

1. The above decision sets out the background to the matter and the reasons that Ms Williams came to be dealt with separately. The decision should be read together with this judgment. Initially Ms Williams’ defence was that she had not been involved in the assault that was at the core of the charges. She denied that she was the person seen in CCTV footage of the relevant scene. This created a somewhat odd scenario because Mr McIver accepted that he had been with Ms Williams on the day and that he is present in the footage. He denied however, that he had committed any crime while present.

1. In order to understand the shift in the position adopted by Ms Williams, I think it convenient to quote from the above decision:  

19.On 1 July 2021 I was informed that the matter could proceed on 8 September 2021. Nevertheless the case took yet another turn. By an Application dated 7 September 2021 Ms Williams sought an adjournment with the ultimate purpose that a verdict of Not Guilty by reason of mental impairment be entered in her case. The application was supported by an affidavit of Ms Jorgensen-Hull affirmed on 7 September 2021. The affidavit annexes a report of Dr Harrison, a clinical psychiatrist, dated 2 September 2021. Ms Williams has been consulting Dr Harrison for some time.

20.In her report Dr Harrison says that at the time of the alleged offending Ms Williams was suffering a mental impairment. In particular she says that Ms Williams did not know the nature and quality of her conduct, she did not…