The Queen v Imran Hakimi - [2011] ACTSC 55

THE QUEEN v IMRAN HAKIMI
[2011] ACTSC 55 (31 March 2011)

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming incapable during trial – accused assessed as fit to plead – need for interpreter – Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 311.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 54(1), 311, 315, 315A

R v Rostom (2007) 98 SASR 528
Saraya v The Queen (1993) 70 A Crim R 515
R v Fisher [2011] ACTSC 56
Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1

No. SCC 52 of 2009

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 31 March 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 52 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R
v

IMRAN HAKIMI

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  31 March 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

Imran Hakimi is fit to plead.

On 25 October 2010, Imran Hakimi appeared before Acting Justice Matthews when his trial was listed to proceed on an indictment containing one count, being a charge laid under s 54(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).

The court was advised that an issue had arisen about Mr Hakimi’s fitness to plead as he had suffered what was described as “a fundamental degradation of his mental capacity” over the previous week.

Her Honour, being satisfied that there was a real and substantial question about the fitness to plead of Mr Hakimi, gave directions under s 315 of the Crimes Act that Mr Hakimi be examined by a psychiatrist and an urgent assessment be prepared. The proceedings were adjourned to 16 November 2010.

On 16 November 2010, advice was received from Forensic Services, Mental Health ACT that an appointment had been made for Mr Hakimi to be examined by a psychiatrist on 30 November 2010. Accordingly, her Honour adjourned the proceedings into the Criminal Directions List on 9 December 2010 so that arrangements could be made for the investigation into Mr Hakimi’s fitness to plead under s 315A of the Crimes Act.

The proceedings came before me on 9 December 2010 and I noted that the Psychiatric Report prepared by Dr Graham George on 30 November 2010 was not a report on Mr Hakimi’s fitness to plead, but a Psychiatric Assessment, a mental health report.

That report did, however, conclude:

Mr Hakimi presents with symptoms suggestive of Chronic Post Traumatic Distress Disorder in association with elements of borderline personality disorder. He is also being treated for depression but it is difficult to know if he has a major depression or whether his depression is more reactive to his current circumstances. I would tend to favour the later hypothesis. Taking an antidepressant medication may help him and certainly would not harm him. I have diagnosed any other form of mental disorder or mental illness.
His cognitions generally appear intact. It may well be that times of stress he tends to dissociate so that he does not focus his attention due to his level of anxiety at…

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 Imran Hakimi

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Imran Hakimi [2011] ACTSC 55
Case: [2011] ACTSC 55
Decision Date: 31 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought a case against Imran Hakimi in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute involved Hakimi's fitness to plead and his capacity to understand the proceedings and participate in his defence. The matter was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal, which had to determine whether Hakimi was fit to plead or if he had become unfit during the trial. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly determined that Hakimi was fit to plead, and whether the requirements of the relevant legislation had been met, specifically section 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

The court examined the process followed by the trial judge in assessing Hakimi's fitness to plead, focusing on whether the judge had made an appropriate determination based on the evidence and expert opinions provided. The court also considered whether the need for an interpreter had been adequately addressed and whether this requirement was a factor in the fitness assessment. In making its decision, the court took into account the statutory framework provided by section 311 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), which outlines the procedures for assessing an accused's fitness to plead.

After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's assessment, the court concluded that Hakimi was indeed fit to plead. The court found that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion and correctly determined that Hakimi was capable of understanding the proceedings and participating in his defence. The court was satisfied that all procedural requirements had been met, including the provision of an interpreter where necessary. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the court made appropriate orders to give effect to the finding of fitness to plead.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find Imran Hakimi fit to plead and will make appropriate consequential orders to give effect to that finding.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.