R v Wilson (No. 2) - [2013] NSWSC 1288

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wilson (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1288
Hearing dates: 19 August 2013, 9 September 2013
Decision date: 09 September 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1. Accused is unfit to be tried.
2. Direct that a special hearing be conducted in accordance with s.30(2)(a) Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Accused charged with murder and other offences - earlier finding of unfitness to be tried - referral to Mental Health Review Tribunal - Tribunal determines that Accused fit to be tried - referral back to Court - inquiry under s.29 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 - Accused unfit to be tried - Accused had been detained as inmate or forensic patient for more than 12 months - direction that special hearing proceed under s.30(2)(a) of the Act
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: Kesavarajah v R [1994] HCA 41; 181 CLR 230
R v Presser (1958) VR 45
R v Wilson (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1146
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Joseph Rowan Wilson (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr LL Lungo (Crown)
Mr MG Ainsworth; Ms JA Wright (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bayside Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2009/262146
Publication restriction: ---

Judgment (On FITNESS TO BE TRIED - T20)

JOHNSON J: On 19 August 2013, I embarked upon an inquiry into the fitness of Joseph Rowan Wilson to be tried on charges of murder, solicit to murder and commit act intending to cause a person to give false evidence. The inquiry was adjourned in circumstances described in my judgment, R v Wilson (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1146. The earlier judgment ought be read in conjunction with the present reasons.

Since the inquiry commenced on 19 August 2013, Professor David Greenberg has again examined Mr Wilson. A report of Professor Greenberg of 5 September 2013 is in evidence before me. Professor Greenberg has examined Mr Wilson on a number of earlier occasions, and his most recent report helpfully outlines the history with respect to Mr Wilson since he was first charged with the present matters in November 2009.

There is, within Professor Greenberg's report of 5 September 2013, a section containing a detailed opinion concerning the current fitness of Mr Wilson to be tried (Exhibit C, pages 6-7):

"FITNESS TO PLEAD AND STAND TRIAL

I assessed Mr Wilson with regard to Presser (1958) VR 45 at 48 and Kesavarajah vs R (1994) 123 ALR 463 criteria.

Mr Wilson understands the nature of charges he is currently facing.

He understands the various pleas that are available to him. He understands the difference between a guilty and a not guilty plea and in rudimentary terms the possible consequences or outcomes of these pleas.

He understands the nature of an oath and the consequences of perjury.

He generally understands the nature of the proceedings,…

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 Wilson (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1288
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1288
Decision Date: 09 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wilson, the defendant faced charges of murder and other related offences. The case came before the court following a previous finding that the accused was unfit to be tried. This determination led to a referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which later found the accused fit to be tried. Consequently, the case was returned to the court for further proceedings. An inquiry under section 29 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 was then conducted, which resulted in a finding that the accused remained unfit to be tried. Notably, the accused had been detained as an inmate or forensic patient for over 12 months. The court was required to consider whether a special hearing should proceed under section 30(2)(a) of the Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the provisions of section 30(2)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 applied, given that the accused had been detained for more than 12 months and had been found unfit to be tried. The court had to determine if the statutory criteria were met for a special hearing to be conducted. This involved interpreting the legislative framework and assessing the accused's ongoing mental state and fitness to stand trial.

The court concluded that the statutory conditions for a special hearing were indeed satisfied. The accused's prolonged detention and continued unfitness to be tried met the criteria set out in section 30(2)(a) of the Act. The court found that a special hearing was warranted to reassess the accused's fitness to proceed with the trial. The decision emphasized the importance of ensuring that the accused's mental health status was appropriately evaluated and that the legal rights of the accused were protected throughout the process.

The court directed that a special hearing be held to further inquire into the accused's fitness to be tried. This hearing was to include expert psychiatric evidence to provide a comprehensive assessment of the accused's mental condition. The court's decision underscored the need for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the accused's mental health in the context of the criminal proceedings. The ruling highlighted the delicate balance between the administration of justice and the protection of the rights of individuals with mental health impairments.

Orders