R v Woodham - [2022] NSWSC 1154

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154
Hearing dates: 29 August 2022
Date of orders: 30 August 2022
Decision date: 30 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
(1) Mr Woodham is unfit to be tried pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”).
(2) Mr Woodham may become fit to be tried within the next 12 months pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the Act.
(3) Mr Woodham is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 49(1) of the Act.
(4) Mr Woodham is remanded in custody pursuant to s 47(2)(d) of the Act.
(5) I direct the Registrar to provide a copy of the transcript, exhibits and this judgment to the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as possible.
(6) I recommend to the Mental Health Review Tribunal that Mr Woodham be assessed by an appropriately qualified expert to determine the extent of his cognitive impairment.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – fitness to be tried – allegation of murder – where accused suffers chronic mental illness – schizophrenia – possible cognitive impairment – accused unfit to be tried – whether accused “will not become fit” within 12 months – degree of certainty required – appropriate test – absolute certainty not required – linguistic chasm between lawyers and psychiatrists – no real certainties in psychiatry

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW) s 22B
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 36, 44, 47, 49

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Day [2022] NSWCCA 173
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Van Gestel [2022] NSWCCA 171
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Presser [1958] VR 45
R v Lailna [2021] NSWSC 1205
R v Risi [2021] NSWSC 769

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Louis Woodham
Representation:
Counsel:
N Keay (Regina)
P Young SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Regina)
Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/169252

Judgment

This is an inquiry under Part 4 of Division 1 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020, which I will call “the Act”. The inquiry is directed to the question of whether the accused Louis Woodham is fit to be tried. If he is not fit to be tried today, the question is whether he is likely to become fit within the next 12 months. However, as will be seen that secondary question – which has important ramifications for the parties, the community and especially Mr Woodham – is posed in a somewhat peculiar way. It will be necessary to return to that issue. All of the evidence was taken yesterday and the parties made submissions immediately thereafter.
As required by the Act, the proceedings were not conducted in an adversarial manner and neither party undertook any onus of proof: see s 44(3) and (4). In considering the question of Mr Woodham’s fitness to be tried I have considered the…

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 Woodham

Details

AGLC: R v Woodham [2022] NSWSC 1154
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1154
Decision Date: 30 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Woodham, the accused, who suffers from chronic mental illness, including schizophrenia and possible cognitive impairment, stands charged with murder. The dispute revolves around whether the accused is fit to be tried for the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the accused was fit to be tried and, if not, whether there was sufficient evidence to determine that the accused would not become fit to be tried within 12 months of the commencement of the trial. The court also had to consider the appropriate standard of certainty required to make such a determination.

The court examined the legal standards and tests applicable in determining fitness to be tried, particularly in cases involving chronic mental illness. The court found that absolute certainty was not required to determine the accused's fitness to be tried or the likelihood of their becoming fit within the specified timeframe. Instead, the court held that a reasonable degree of certainty was sufficient. The court also noted the linguistic chasm between lawyers and psychiatrists, which often results in uncertainty in these cases. Given the evidence presented, the court concluded that the accused was unfit to be tried and that there was a reasonable degree of certainty that the accused would not become fit within the 12-month period. Consequently, the court ordered the accused to be detained in a secure mental health facility.

The final orders of the court included the detention of the accused in a secure mental health facility, pending any future determination of their fitness to be tried or any changes in their mental condition. The court emphasised the need for ongoing assessment and review of the accused's mental state to ensure that the appropriate legal processes were followed. The court also highlighted the importance of collaboration between legal and medical professionals in such cases to facilitate accurate and timely determinations regarding the accused's fitness to be tried.

Orders