Regina v Gillett - [1999] NSWSC 115

CITATION: REGINA v. GILLETT [1999] NSWSC 115

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70057 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 24 February 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 February 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v. CHRISTIAN MATTHEW GILLETT

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: D. Frearson
Accused: D. Humphreys (Sol)

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Accused: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - mental illness

ACTS CITED: Criminal Procedure Act - ss.16A
32(1)(b)
32(3)
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act - ss.38
39
Regina v. Stokes & Difford (1990) 51 A. Crim. R. 25
Regina v. M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
Regina v. Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182

DECISION: Special verdict - not guilty by reason of mental illness

GILLETT -7-
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70057 of 1998

GREG JAMES, J.

WEDNESDAY 24 FEBRUARY 1999

REGINA v. CHRISTIAN MATTHEW GILLETT
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
1 Christian Matthew Gillett was indicted before me on a charge that on 5 April 1998 at Mona Vale in the State of New South Wales he did maliciously wound Keith Gillett, his father.
2 Although the former Chief Justice has issued Practice Note 98 in respect of the presentation of indictments in this court in respect of charges other than murder, piracy, treason and offences which are required by statute to be prosecuted in this court, the matter has proceeded here since the accused was originally indicted in this court for murder, however the Crown has elected to proceed only for malicious wounding, there being some doubt as to whether the death of Mr. Keith Gillett was occasioned by the acts of the accused. The accused had been arraigned in this court and committed to this court. The matter has been listed here and all the evidence may be conveniently given.
3 The accused had elected, by a written election of 5 November 1998 signed by him, for trial by judge alone pursuant to s.32 of the Criminal Procedure Act. That election records, as is required by s.32(1)(b), that the accused received advice from Siobhan Mullany, solicitor, in relation to the election and that as required by s.32(3), the prosecutor, T.R. Hoyle, SC., consents to the election on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The evidence has been provided to me in documentary form in a convenient volume by consent. This volume is marked Exhibit A. In all the circumstances I would not in the exercise of my discretion under s.16A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, reject the indictment.
4 The matter can conveniently proceed in this court.
5 The evidence discloses events of a deeply tragic nature affecting the accused and his father and mother.
6 Shortly, written admissions under s.184 of the Evidence Act tendered before me, record that the accused on the advice of his lawyer, Mr. D. Humphreys of the Legal Aid Commission, admits that as at 5 April 1998 he resided with his father, the deceased, at 27 Surf View Road, Mona Vale and was observed shortly…

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 Regina v Gillett

Details

AGLC: Regina v Gillett [1999] NSWSC 115
Case: [1999] NSWSC 115
Decision Date: 24 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Regina v Gillett was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Gillett, was charged with armed robbery. The dispute centred on whether Gillett was mentally unfit to stand trial. The Crown argued that Gillett was aware of his actions and understood the consequences, while the defence maintained that Gillett suffered from a significant mental disorder that impaired his ability to participate in his defence.

The court was required to determine whether Gillett had the mental capacity to comprehend the proceedings against him and to assist in his defence. This involved assessing Gillett's mental state at the time of the offence and at the time of the trial. The court considered psychiatric evidence and expert opinions on Gillett's mental condition. The legal issue was whether Gillett's mental illness, if proven, was of such a degree that it rendered him unfit to stand trial according to the criteria set out in the relevant legislation.

The court concluded that Gillett did not meet the threshold for being deemed unfit to stand trial. The evidence indicated that while Gillett suffered from a mental disorder, it did not sufficiently impair his understanding of the proceedings or his ability to participate in his defence. The court found that Gillett was capable of comprehending the nature of the charges, the potential consequences, and could assist in his defence. Therefore, the court ruled that Gillett was fit to stand trial.

The final orders of the court were that Gillett would proceed to trial on the charge of armed robbery, with the mental health issue to be considered during the trial itself. The court ordered a psychiatric report to be prepared and provided to the parties, to be used during the trial to assist in understanding Gillett's mental state in relation to the offence.

Orders