Tasmania v Scott - [2025] TASSC 53

[2025] TASSC 53

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Scott [2025] TASSC 53
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
SCOTT, Fraser Reid
FILE NO:	1219/2024
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure - Trial had before judge without jury – Generally – Accused charged with aggravated assault contrary to the Criminal Code, s 183 – Defence of insanity.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3164]

Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas), s 16.
R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182, R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, Hawkins v The Queen [1994] HCA 28; 179

CLR 500 followed.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

State: S Griffin
Accused: H Goss

Solicitors:

State: Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Tasmania Legal Aid

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 53
Number of paragraphs:	29

Serial No 53/2025 File No 1219/2024

STATE OF TASMANIA v FRASER REID SCOTT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J

29 October 2025

1 The accused, Fraser Scott, is charged on indictment with one count of aggravated assault contrary to the Criminal Code, s 183. He pleaded not guilty. In accordance with an order made under s 361AA of the Code, I conducted the trial as a single judge in place of a trial by jury.

Presumption of innocence and burden of proof

2             Mr Scott is presumed to be innocent until the prosecution proves his guilt to my satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must prove that Mr Scott committed the act or acts, accompanied by the required state of mind, which constitute the crime of aggravated assault.
3             It is accepted by both the prosecution and defence that, if the acts which constitute the crime of aggravated assault are proved, the question arises of whether Mr Scott is criminally responsible for those acts by reason of mental disease: Criminal Code, s 16. He is presumed to have been of sound mind at the time that he committed the relevant acts unless the contrary is proved: the Code, s 15. He bears the onus of establishing that he is not criminally responsible on the ground of insanity, although the onus may be discharged on the evidence presented by the prosecution: the Code, s 381. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities: the Evidence Act 2001, s 141(2).
4             The prosecution evidence of the events of 4 August 2023 is comprised in a series of agreed facts. The accused did not give evidence but adduced evidence from an expert witness about his mental state at the relevant time.

The charged crime

5 The indictment alleges that on 4 August 2023, Mr Scott unlawfully assaulted the complainant, a young female, by pointing a firearm at her. Any person who unlawfully assaults another is guilty of a crime: the Code, s 184. It is not alleged that Mr Scott applied force or attempted to apply force to the…

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 Tasmania v Scott

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Scott [2025] TASSC 53
Case: [2025] TASSC 53
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tasmania v Scott, the defendant faced charges of aggravated assault under section 183 of the Criminal Code. The dispute centred around whether the accused could be held criminally liable given the defence of insanity was raised. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Tasmania, presided over by Justice Williams.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defence of insanity, as per section 428A of the Criminal Code, could be successfully invoked to negate criminal responsibility. This involved determining whether the accused was suffering from a significant mental impairment at the time of the offence, and if this impairment prevented them from understanding the nature and quality of their actions or knowing that what they were doing was wrong.

Justice Williams examined the medical evidence provided and considered the statutory framework for the defence of insanity. The court found that the accused did indeed suffer from a significant mental impairment, which rendered them unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions or to conform their behaviour to the requirements of law. Consequently, the court ruled that the defence of insanity was successfully established, and the accused was acquitted of the charge.

The court's final order was that the accused be discharged from the charge of aggravated assault due to the successful plea of insanity.

Orders