Legal Research
Cases
R v Yeaman (No 2)

R v Yeaman (No 2)

Case [2021] ACTSC 287 4 November 2021

Jurisdiction

Unconscionable Conduct

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Yeaman (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 287
Hearing Date:	4 November 2021
DecisionDate:	4 November 2021
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	12 months’ imprisonment, suspended after six months on the offender entering into a six-month good behaviour order. Offender to submit to jurisdiction of ACAT to allow ACAT to make mental health order or forensic mental health order
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – arson – where fire lit inside cell at the Alexander Maconochie Centre – where offender has mental health difficulties – where offender progressing well at Dhulwa Forensic Unit CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Causing grievous bodily harm – where special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment entered – where serious offence – whether accused should be retained in custody for immediate review by the ACAT – consideration of criteria for detention – whether order should be made requiring accused to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic mental health order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 25, 324 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 404 Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT) s 117
Cases Cited:	R v Beroukas [2021] ACTSC 172 R v Denniss [2021] ACTSC 15 R v Howsan [2020] ACTSC 172 R v Matthew [2017] ACTSC 413 R v Miles [2016] ACTSC 83 R v Rahman [2021] ACTSC 257 R v Thomas [2019] ACTSC 306 R v Yeaman [2021] ACTSC 252
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Julian Yeaman (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Smith (Crown) B Collaery (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Daryl Perkins Solicitors (Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 51, 288 of 2020

MURRELL CJ:

Introduction

Sitting as a judge alone, I tried the offender on two counts. In relation to both counts, he raised the “defence” of mental impairment.

On 7 October 2020, I convicted the offender of the offence that, on 21 October 2019 he committed arson, contrary to s 404(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The offender is to be sentenced for this offence. The maximum penalty is a fine of $240,000, imprisonment for 15 years, or both.

In relation to the second count in the indictment, on the basis of mental impairment I returned a special verdict of not guilty of the statutory alternative offence that on 31 May 2020, while a resident at the Dhulwa Forensic Unit (Dhulwa), he caused grievous bodily harm to his mother contrary to s 25 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). For a person convicted of such an offence, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years. It is a “serious offence” within the meaning of s 324 of the Crimes Act.

The parties invite me to proceed to deal with this matter pursuant to s 324(2)(b) of the Crimes Act, which provides:

324Supreme Court orders following special verdict of not…

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 Yeaman (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Yeaman (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 287
Case: [2021] ACTSC 287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the Crown prosecuted Julian Yeaman for arson and causing grievous bodily harm. Yeaman had set a fire in his cell at the Alexander Maconochie Centre and caused harm to his mother while a resident at the Dhulwa Forensic Unit. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the arson conviction and whether Yeaman should be detained for immediate review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (ACAT) or be subject to a mental health order or a forensic mental health order under the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT). The court considered the objective and subjective factors of the arson offence, Yeaman's mental health, and relevant sentencing purposes.

Yeaman's mental health issues played a significant role in the court's decision. The court found that his mental health problems, including borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, had impaired his judgment and ability to control his impulses. While these issues reduced his moral culpability, the court still considered personal deterrence and accountability relevant sentencing purposes. The court also noted that Yeaman was progressing well at Dhulwa, with university studies and physical fitness, but had occasional difficulties that led to his placement in the high-risk section of Dhulwa.

The court decided that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, suspended after six months on the condition that Yeaman enter into a six-month good behaviour order, was appropriate for the arson offence. The court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, Yeaman's mental health, and relevant sentencing purposes, such as accountability, rehabilitation, and personal deterrence. The court also noted that Yeaman's lengthy period of detention and the difficulties he would face if returned to a custodial setting at the Alexander Maconochie Centre were factors in the sentencing decision. For the charge of causing grievous bodily harm, the court considered it more appropriate to order that Yeaman 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 (ACT).

The final orders of the court were that Yeaman be sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, suspended after six months on the condition that he enter into a six-month good behaviour order, and that he 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 (ACT).

Orders