R v Yates (a pseudonym)

[2022] ACTSC 203

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Yates (a pseudonym)

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 203

Hearing Date:

8 August 2022

DecisionDate:

8 August 2022

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

(i) Pursuant to s 314(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the Court is not satisfied that there is a real and substantial question about the defendant’s fitness to plead;

(ii)    The Criminal Case Conference on 25 August 2022 is vacated;

(iii)    The defendant is to be referred to by the pseudonym of “Timothy Yates”.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Fitness to plead – whether there is a real and substantial question about the defendant’s fitness to plead pursuant to s 314 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – Court not satisfied

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 314

Parties:

The Queen ( Crown)

Timothy Yates (a pseudonym) ( Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

J Epstein ( Crown)

E Chen ( Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown)

Legal Aid ACT ( Accused)

File Number:

SCC 141 of 2022

Elkaim J

1. This matter has come before me pursuant to s 314 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The question of Mr Yates’ fitness to plead was raised in the Magistrates Court. It was then referred to the Supreme Court so that s 314(3) applies.

1. I have to decide whether I am satisfied that there is a real and substantial question about the defendant’s fitness to plead. If I were to do so, then I would reserve that question for investigation.

1. The Crown has tendered a bundle of documents which are collectively Exhibit A. Those documents include a report of Dr Barker who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist. In his opinion, Mr Yates, while suffering from some mental health conditions, is fit to plead which is perhaps a little surprising having regard to the statement of facts. Nevertheless, he is the psychiatrist and I am not. In addition there is no competing medical opinion and, perhaps more importantly, the legal representative for Mr Yates, Mr Chen, does not challenge the opinion of Dr Barker.

1. Accordingly, the only available option to me is to find that there is not a real and substantial question about Mr Yate’s fitness to plead. On behalf of Mr Yates, Mr Chen has requested that the Criminal Case Conference set down for 25 August 2022 be vacated. Further, Mr Chen seeks an order allowing for some medical opinion to be sought on the question of whether the defendant might enter into a plea of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. That seems to be a real option that arises from the statement of facts.

1. According, the orders of the Court are:

(i)Pursuant to s 314(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the Court is not satisfied that there is a real and substantial question about the defendant’s fitness to plead;

(ii)The Criminal Case Conference on 25 August 2022 is vacated;

(iii)The defendant is to be referred to by the pseudonym of “Timothy Yates”.

1. I note that the matter is currently listed in the Registrar’s List on 1 September 2022. I confirm that hearing.

I certify that the preceding six [6] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: