R v Wright

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Wright [2020] NSWDC 162

Hearing dates:

28 April 2020

Date of orders:

01 May 2020

Decision date:

01 May 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Bright DCJ

Decision:

(1)   I find that the accused Matthew Wright is unfit to be tried for the offences.

 

(2) In accordance with section 14(a), Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, I refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

 

(3)   I direct that the Registry provide a copy of the reports of Dr Chew and Dr Pulman to the Mental Health Review Tribunal together with a copy of my judgment.

(4) In accordance with section 14(b) (i) and (iii), Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, the proceedings are adjourned to 28 May 2020 for mention and the accused is remanded in custody.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL - Fitness hearing - Presser test - agreement of experts

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act, 1900
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions ) Act, 1990

Cases Cited:

Kesavarajah v R [1994] HCA 41; 181 CLR 245.
R v Presser (1958) VR 45

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Matthew Wright (Accused)

Representation:

Mr R Bucksath (Crown)
Mr B Pierce (Accused)

File Number(s):

2018/281282 and 2019/932940

Judgment

1. Matthew Wright, the accused, has been charged with the following four offences:

1. Armed robbery (dangerous weapon) section 97(2), Crimes Act (date of offence 11 September 2018).

2. Aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence (larceny)(section 112(2), Crimes Act (date of offence 12 September 2018)

3. Aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence (larceny)(section 112(2), Crimes Act (date of offence 12 September 2018)

4. Aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence (intimidation)(section 112(2), Crimes Act) (date of offence 13 September 2018).

2. The indictments have been filed but the accused as not been arraigned in circumstances where the question of his fitness to be tried has been raised.

3. The matter was listed before Gosford District Court on 28 April 2020 for a fitness inquiry.

The relevant law

4. Section 6, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act provides:

“The question of a person’s unfitness to be tried for an offence is to be determined on the balance of probabilities”.

5. Section 11, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act provides:

“(1) The question of a person’s unfitness to be tried for an offence is to be determined by the Judge alone.

(2) Any determination by the Judge under this section must include the principles of law applied by the Judge and the findings of fact on which the Judge relied.”

6. Section 12, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act provides:

“(1)    At an inquiry, the accused person is, unless the Court otherwise allows, to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner.

(2)    An inquiry is not to be conducted in an adversary manner.

(3)    The onus of proof of the question of a person’s unfitness to be tried for an offence does not rest on any particular party to the proceedings in respect of the offence.”

7. Section 13, Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act provides:

“If, following an inquiry,…