Regina v Teraguchi - [2002] NSWSC 529

CITATION: REGINA v. TERAGUCHI [2002] NSWSC 529

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70042 of 2002

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 13 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 13 June 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v. Mariya TERAGUCHI

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: Mr. P. Dare
App: D.J. Humphreys (Sol.)

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: D.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - special hearing - issue of mental illness.

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health Act 1990

CASES CITED: Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505
Fleming (1998) 158 ALR 379

DECISION: A special verdict under s.25 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act of not gulity by reason of mental illness. An order that the accused be detained in the Bunya Medium Security Unit, Cumberland Hospital or such other place as may be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 13 JUNE 2002

No. 70042 of 2002

REGINA v. MARIYA TERAGUCHI
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused, Mariya Teraguchi, appears before me on a special hearing directed by the Attorney General under s.19 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (the Act), s.19. That hearing is to be conducted as required by s.21 of that Act.

2 By virtue of s.21(3)(a), the accused is to be taken to have entered a plea of not guilty in respect of the offence charged. That offence charged is that she did on 24 June 2001 at Yagoona murder Ryoko Teraguchi. Upon the indictment being read to her she informed me that she did not murder Ryoko Teraguchi but did kill an imposter.

3 She has earlier been brought before Justice Barr in this court, the question of her fitness for trial having been raised and he determined, after a hearing conducted in accordance with the Act, that she was unfit for trial. It was in consequence of that determination that the Mental Health Review Tribunal assessed her fitness for trial, but determined that she would not be fit for trial within 12 months.

4 It was in consequence of that determination that the Attorney General gave the direction to which I have referred which has caused this special hearing to be brought before me.

5 The relevant requirements of s.21A of the Act and s.16 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 were met in that an appropriate election by the accused on the advice of her lawyer and consented to by the Director for Public Prosecutions for trial by judge alone on the issues arising on the special hearing was made and filed.

6 I am required therefore on this hearing to conduct the hearing without a jury and to do so in accordance with s.21, and reach a verdict as prescribed by s.21B and s.22 of the Act. In particular, I am to have regard to s.25 of that Act since on the material…

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 Teraguchi

Details

AGLC: Regina v Teraguchi [2002] NSWSC 529
Case: [2002] NSWSC 529
Decision Date: 13 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Teraguchi was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Teraguchi, was charged with various criminal offences, including charges related to drug trafficking and possession of a firearm. A significant aspect of the case was the defendant's mental health, which raised questions about his fitness to stand trial and his capacity to understand the proceedings against him. The prosecution sought a special hearing to address these issues, and the court was required to determine whether Teraguchi was fit to be tried and, if so, how the trial should proceed.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Teraguchi was mentally fit to stand trial and, if he was deemed unfit, what measures should be taken to ensure he received appropriate treatment. The court needed to consider expert psychiatric evidence and assess Teraguchi's mental state, including his ability to understand the charges, instruct his legal representatives, and participate in his defence. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) and any relevant case law concerning the fitness of defendants in criminal trials.

The court, after reviewing the psychiatric evidence and other submissions, concluded that Teraguchi was indeed fit to stand trial. The experts agreed that while Teraguchi had a history of mental illness, he demonstrated an understanding of the charges and the court process, and was able to engage in his defence effectively. The court accepted that Teraguchi's mental health issues did not impede his ability to participate in the trial, and thus, he was deemed fit to proceed. The court acknowledged the importance of ongoing monitoring of Teraguchi's mental health throughout the trial, but found that there were no grounds to declare him unfit at that time.

The court's final orders included the continuation of the trial with appropriate measures in place to ensure Teraguchi's ongoing mental health was supported. The court emphasised the need for regular updates on Teraguchi's mental state and directed that psychiatric assessments be conducted periodically during the trial. This decision ensured that the trial could proceed while also addressing the defendant's mental health needs.

Orders