Legal Research
Cases
Squance v WA Police

Squance v WA Police

Case [2023] WASC 479 21 December 2023

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   SQUANCE -v- WA POLICE [2023] WASC 479
CORAM:   HOWARD J
HEARD:   5 DECEMBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   21 DECEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1056 of 2023
BETWEEN:   BRETT JOHN SQUANCE
Appellant
AND
WA POLICE
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE E O'DONNELL
File Number            :   FR 6887/2021; FR 7851 - 7855/2021; AR 4952/2022

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Single judge appeal - Appeal against decision that the accused is mentally unfit to stand trial under s 9 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA) where accused wished to plead guilty to charges - Whether the accused was able to understand the effects of a plea - Meaning of 'trial' - Appeal allowed - Matter remitted to a different magistrate

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA)
Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2014 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Learned Magistrate's dismissal of charges set aside

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	L R Nicholls
Respondent	:	D Van Nellestijn

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	James Woodford Barrister & Solicitor
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Arkeveld v DPP (WA) [2023] WASC 264
Dodd v DPP (WA) [2022] WASC 116
Eastman v R (2000) 203 CLR 1
Houghton v State of Western Australia [2022] WASCA 7
Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 330
Little v R [2013] NSWCCA 288
Lowe Pty Ltd v Belgravia Nominees Pty Ltd [2020] WASCA 180
Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132
Mohammadi v Bethune [2018] WASCA 98
Ngatayi v R (1980) 147 CLR 1
R v Dunne [2001] WASC 263
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
R v Pritchard (1836) 7 C & P 303, 173 ER 135
Samuels v State of Western Australia (2005) 30 WAR 473
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration [2017] HCA 34; (2017) 91 ALJR 936
The State of Western Australia v Mack [2012] WASC 127
The State of Western Australia v O'Meara [2018] WASC 121
The State of Western Australia v Tekle [No 2] [2017] WASC 351
Waite v Hennah [2021] WASCA 69; (2021) 96 MVR 58

HOWARD J:

Background

On 27 October 2020 the appellant became an involuntary patient at Fremantle Hospital: that lasted for 7 months and 19 days.[1]
[1] JW 6 at page 22 [31] to the Woodford Affidavit 23 August 2023 (filed in CIV 1898 of 2023).
During the appellant's time in hospital, he allegedly committed the following four offences:
1.criminal damage on 24 April 2021;
2.assault of a public officer on 11 May 2021;
3.criminal damage on 12 May 2021; and
4.assault of a public officer on 20 May 2021.
After the appellant was discharged from hospital, he committed a further offence of assault occasioning bodily harm on 22 September 2021. Following this assault, the appellant was remanded in custody at Hakea Prison on 23 September 2021.[2]

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 Squance v WA Police

Details

AGLC: Squance v WA Police [2023] WASC 479
Case: [2023] WASC 479
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the accused, Squance, against a decision that he was mentally unfit to stand trial under section 9 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996 (WA). Squance wished to plead guilty to the charges against him, but the magistrate found that he was unable to understand the effects of a plea. The case was heard by a single judge in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the accused had the capacity to understand the implications of pleading guilty. This involved interpreting the meaning of 'trial' under the Act, and determining whether the accused's mental condition prevented him from comprehending the consequences of a guilty plea. The court also had to consider whether the magistrate's decision was correct and whether the matter should be remitted for a different magistrate to consider the issue.

The court found that the magistrate had not correctly applied the law in determining the accused's fitness to stand trial. The court held that the meaning of 'trial' should encompass the entire process, including the entry of a guilty plea. The accused's capacity to understand the effects of a plea was a critical aspect of his fitness to stand trial, and the magistrate had failed to properly assess this. The court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to a different magistrate to reconsider the issue of the accused's fitness to stand trial, with specific directions regarding the assessment of his understanding of the consequences of a guilty plea.

Orders