Legal Research
Cases
SM v The Queen

SM v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 332 22 September 2011

Fitness to Plead

Miscarriage of Justice

Appeal

Refusal to Adjourn

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0125

SM	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	REDLICH and MANDIE JJA and WHELAN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	22 September 2011
DATE OF ORDERS	22 September 2011
DATE OF PUPLICATION OF REASONS	2 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 332
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v SM (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Tinney, 25 May 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Question of fitness to plead and stand trial – Application at outset of trial to adjourn trial to investigate question refused – Fresh evidence on appeal relevant to question – Whether discretion to refuse adjournment miscarried – Whether refusal to adjourn produced miscarriage of justice – Conviction quashed and retrial ordered.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr L C Carter and Mr P J Wheelahan	Ann Valos
For the Crown	Mrs C M Quin	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:

Following a County Court trial the appellant was convicted of raping a woman after she visited his residence for the purposes of receiving a massage. He was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of four and a half years.

On 19 August 2011 I granted the appellant leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. At the hearing of the appeal on 22 September 2011, this Court ordered that, among other things, the appeal against conviction be allowed, the conviction be quashed and the sentence set aside and a re-trial ordered. What follows are my reasons for the Orders made.

History of proceedings

The appellant’s matter was first listed for a filing hearing on 6 March 2009. After various directions’ hearings and a contested committal in August 2009, the matter was listed for trial in June 2010. However, due to the unavailability of a judge, the trial was adjourned to 7 March 2011.

The appellant’s solicitor remained the same throughout these pre-trial proceedings and the trial, but counsel briefed to appear for the appellant changed a number of times. As a consequence, counsel who represented the appellant at trial was only briefed days before the trial and first met the appellant the day before the trial commenced.

Counsel, of significant experience at the bar, became immediately concerned about the appellant’s fitness to plead, and in particular, communicate instructions. He raised the issue of the appellant’s fitness to plead with the trial judge on the morning of the first day of trial and sought an adjournment to have the appellant assessed. The trial judge refused the application and ordered that the trial proceed.

However, during the trial, it became even more apparent to the appellant’s legal team that the appellant may have been suffering from a mental illness. He was observed to be muttering and making odd gestures to the jury and himself. For this reason, the trial judge revoked his bail.

During the plea, a Forensicare pre-sentence psychiatric report was tendered indicating the appellant suffered…

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 SM v The Queen

Details

AGLC: SM v The Queen [2011] VSCA 332
Case: [2011] VSCA 332
Decision Date: 22 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SM v The Queen, the appellant, SM, was on trial for charges of murder. The Crown argued that SM was fit to stand trial, while the defence maintained that SM was not fit to plead and, consequently, not fit to stand trial. The trial judge rejected the defence's application to adjourn the trial to investigate the issue of fitness. The appeal to the Court of Appeal focused on whether the trial judge's refusal to adjourn the trial constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had misapplied the discretion to refuse the adjournment, and whether this refusal resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The defence argued that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the evidence and had not adequately assessed the potential impact of SM's alleged unfitness on the fairness of the trial. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the trial judge's decision was correct and that there was no miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge had miscarried in the exercise of the discretion to refuse the adjournment. The Court found that the trial judge had not fully considered the evidence and had not adequately assessed the implications of SM's alleged unfitness on the fairness of the trial. The Court held that the refusal to adjourn the trial led to a miscarriage of justice, as it prevented a proper determination of SM's fitness to stand trial. Consequently, the Court quashed SM's conviction and ordered a retrial. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that defendants are fit to stand trial to maintain the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system.

Orders