The Queen v Hoffmann (No 3) - [2022] NTSC 24

CITATION:The Queen v Hoffmann (No 3) [2022] NTSC 24
PARTIES:THE QUEEN
v

HOFFMANN, Benjamin

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction
FILE NO:21922564
DELIVERED:  31 March 2022
HEARING DATE:  4 March 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Burns J

CATCHWORDS:
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – Meaning of the word “trial” within Division 3 of Part IIA of Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) – Whether “trial” includes proceedings on plea of guilty – Whether contrary intention demonstrated – “Trial” not intended to include proceedings on plea of guilty
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Scope of power to order investigation into fitness under Part IIA of Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) – Where accused becomes mentally ill in period between plea of guilty and passing of sentence – No jurisdiction to order investigation under CriminalCode –Common law jurisdiction to order investigation into accused’s capacity to give instructions in sentencing phase of proceedings not determined by previous authority – No obligation to order investigation

Criminal Appeal Act 1907, 7 Edw 7, c 23
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT) ss 4, 43J, 43K, 43N, 43P, 43Q, 43R, 43XA, 43V, 43W, 43X, 43ZA, 157
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) s 53A
Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) s 54
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1; R v Dyson (1831) 7 C & P 305; R v GB [2003] OJ No 784; R v Jaser, 2015 ONSC 4729; R v Presser [1958] VR 45; R v Pritchard (1836) 173 ER 135; R v RTI (2003) 58 NSWLR 438, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:

Crown:  L Babb SC with T Grealy and H Riley

Accused:J Tippett QC with P Maley and C Voumard (until 10 November 2021);
P Petersen (25 January 2022 to 22 February 2022);
B Levet with P Petersen (22 February 2022 to 4 March 2022);
Self-represented (all other times)

Amicus curiae:  B Levet with P Petersen (5 March 2022 to present)
Solicitors:

Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Accused:  Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission (until 10 November 2021)
Judgment category classification:     B
Judgment ID Number:  Bur2205
Number of pages:  20

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Queen v Hoffmann (No 3) [2022] NTSC 24
No 21922564

BETWEEN:

THE QUEEN

AND:

BENJAMIN HOFFMANN

CORAM: BURNS J
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 31 March 2022)
Introduction

On 21 September 2021, the prisoner, Benjamin Hoffmann, was arraigned on an indictment containing four counts of murder, four counts of aggravated unlawful entry, three counts of engaging in conduct giving rise to a danger of death, one count of engaging in conduct giving rise to a danger of serious harm, one count of making a threat to kill and one count of damaging property. He entered pleas of not guilty to all charges and his trial proceeded before a jury. The prisoner was represented by Mr J Tippett QC, Mr P Maley and Ms…

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 The Queen v Hoffmann (No 3)

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Hoffmann (No 3) [2022] NTSC 24
Case: [2022] NTSC 24
Decision Date: 31 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Hoffmann (No 3) involved the defendant, Hoffmann, and the Crown. The dispute centred around the defendant's mental capacity and whether this impacted his ability to provide instructions to his legal counsel. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, where the presiding judge needed to determine the appropriate legal course of action concerning the defendant's mental state.

The central legal issue was whether the court was obligated to investigate the defendant's present capacity to give instructions to his lawyers, given his previous history of mental illness. The court also considered whether the defendant's potential incapacity should influence the sentencing process. The judge needed to weigh the principles of common law and statutory provisions against the potential risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The court concluded that neither the statutory provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT) nor common law principles mandated an investigation into the defendant's current capacity to provide legal instructions. The judge reasoned that if the defendant's incapacity was not of short duration, it would not be just to remand him indefinitely. Instead, the court opted to proceed with the sentencing based on the available information, with the understanding that the defendant could appeal or seek leave to appeal out of time if he became capable of providing instructions to his lawyers. This approach was deemed to significantly reduce the risk of a miscarriage of justice.

The court's final order was to decline the order for an investigation into the defendant's fitness to stand trial or participate in the sentencing process. The judge emphasised that the circumstances of each case would dictate the appropriate procedure, and in this instance, proceeding with sentencing was the most just course of action.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In addition, I will be assisted not only by the Crown Prosecutor but also by counsel appearing as amici curiae. I acknowledge the possibility that there may be matters about which the prisoner could provide further information to his lawyers. Assuming that he is currently incapable by reason of mental illness of providing that information to lawyers that he chooses to engage, and assuming that the information is potentially significant to the sentencing process, the prisoner may, at some later time when he is capable of providing instructions to his lawyers, either appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal, or seek leave to appeal out of time. On any such appeal the Court of Appeal may receive further evidence: s 54 Supreme Court Act 1979 (NT). In this way the risk of a miscarriage of justice is greatly reduced.Conclusion I am satisfied that I am not obliged by the provisions of the Code or by common law principles to order an investigation into the prisoner’s present capacity to give instructions to his lawyers. Where such an issue arises after verdict or a plea of guilty, there is no clear procedure which should be adopted. Everything will depend on the circumstances of the case, but where, as here, there is no evidence that the incapacity (assuming that to be the case) is likely to be of relatively short duration, justice to a prisoner would ordinarily dictate that the Court proceed to sentence on the information available rather than remand the prisoner for an indeterminate period. I decline to order an investigation into the prisoner’s fitness to stand trial or to participate in the sentence proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.