Legal Research
Cases
Robinson v R

Robinson v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 64 26 June 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: ROBINSON, Clifford Mark v R [2008] NSWCCA 64

HEARING DATE(S): 25 February 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 June 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Hulme J at 2; Latham J at 57

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Conviction quashed and new trial ordered

CATCHWORDS: CONVICTION APPEAL - whether appellant unfit for trial - issue not raised at trial - possibility of unfitness cannot be excluded.

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1990

CASES CITED: Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
R v R.T.I. (2003) 58 NSWLR 438 ; [2003] NSWCCA 283
R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284
R v Henley [2005] NSWCCA 126
Kirkwood v R [2006] NSWCCA 181
Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
R v Mailes (2001) 53 NSWLR 251 ; (2001) 126 A Crim R 20; [2001] NSWCCA 155
R v Presser (1958) VR 45
Dyers v R (2002) 210 CLR 285
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

PARTIES: Clifford Mark Robinson - (Appellant)
Regina - (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/00003062

COUNSEL: J Doris - (Appellant)
PG Ingram - (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: NJ O'Connor & Associates - (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/1099; 06/21/1103

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Tupman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 21 December 2006

2007/00003062

SPIGELMAN CJ
HULME J
LATHAM J
26 JUNE 2008

CLIFFORD MARK ROBINSON v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ : I agree with Latham J.

2 HULME J: In this matter I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Latham J. So far as possible consistent with making these reasons understandable I shall avoid repetition.

3 In addition to the expert evidence of Dr Rowe and Dr Nielssen, there are other factors or matters of evidence that seem to me significant. They include that the Appellant completed the Higher School Certificate with a score of 49 (out of 100), that he has held a driver’s licence and has a significant employment history. The nature of his work would seem to have been relatively unskilled. It included driving a bobcat and other machinery and labouring for an ashphalt company at a remuneration, according to what the Appellant told police during a recorded interview of “over 1,000”, presumably dollars per week. For reasons which do not reflect adversely on the Appellant he left that employment some 2 weeks prior to his arrest. After his arrest he worked within the hospitality industry for 12 months, apparently as a barman, and then for about 7 months prior to January 2007 as a labourer for a building and fire-proofing company. It is to be inferred from the descriptions of them contained in the documents that evidence their existence that these jobs were on the open labour market.

4 Also relevant are the terms of two intercepted telephone conversations in which the Appellant participated. The terms of one which occurred on 7…

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 Robinson v R

Details

AGLC: Robinson v R [2008] NSWCCA 64
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 64
Decision Date: 26 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robinson v R is a case in which the appellant, Robinson, seeks to appeal his conviction on the grounds that he was unfit to stand trial. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Robinson had been convicted of an offence and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The dispute in this case is whether the appellant was fit to stand trial at the time of his conviction, a matter which was not raised during the trial itself.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's unfitness to stand trial could be considered on appeal when it had not been raised during the trial. The court was required to determine if the appellant's unfitness could be a ground for appeal, even though it was not raised at the trial stage. This involved an examination of the principles of appellate jurisdiction and the circumstances under which an appellant could raise new issues on appeal.

The court held that the issue of the appellant's fitness to stand trial could indeed be considered on appeal, even though it was not raised at trial. The court emphasised that the possibility of unfitness cannot be excluded without proper inquiry. The court noted that the fitness to stand trial is a fundamental aspect of a fair trial and, as such, it could be raised at any stage, including on appeal. The court concluded that the appellant's unfitness was a matter that could not be ignored and must be addressed to ensure the integrity of the judicial process.

The final orders of the court were to remit the case back to the lower court to determine the issue of the appellant's fitness to stand trial. The lower court was instructed to conduct a proper inquiry into the matter and make findings accordingly. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all fundamental aspects of a fair trial are properly addressed, even if such issues are not raised during the original trial.

Orders