The Queen v Murray Cameron Smith [No 2] - [2013] ACTSC 136

THE QUEEN V MURRAY CAMERON SMITH [No 2]
[2013] ACTSC 136 (9 July 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – general matters – criminal liability and capacity – accused found not guilty by reason of mental impairment – whether order needs to be made – what orders can be made – no order made
MENTAL HEALTH – legal proceedings by and against mentally ill and other protected persons – accused found not guilty by reason of mental impairment – whether order needs to be made – what orders can be made – no order made

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 321, 323
Crimes Amendment Act 1994 (ACT)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 8
Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1990 (NSW), s 39
Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT), ss 26, 28, 36

Explanatory Memorandum, Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1994

R v Coleman [2010] NSWSC 177
R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146.

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 294 of 2011

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 9 July 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 294 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN
v
MURRAY CAMERON SMITH

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  9 July 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. No further order be made in relation to this matter

THE FACTS

On 24 August 2012, I declared under s 321 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) that the accused, Murray Cameron Smith, was not guilty of arson by reason of mental impairment. That section of the Crimes Act required me to do so because Mr Smith had entered a plea of not guilty of that charge by reason of mental impairment.
The prosecution had agreed to the entering of the verdict, and I had considered the verdict to be appropriate.
Mr Smith had set fire to a jumper hanging in his wardrobe in the room of the house in which he lived, and the fire spread to the house.
The facts and the details of Mr Smith’s mental impairment are set out in my reasons for judgement: R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146. I do not need to repeat that material but incorporate it in these reasons so far as is necessary.
Following the parties’ submissions, I considered, for reasons set out in my reasons for judgement, that I could and should proceed under s 323 of the Crimes Act and require Mr Smith to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) to enable it to make recommendations as to how I should deal with Mr Smith.
Thereafter, s 323 of the Crimes Act provides that, after considering the recommendation of the ACAT, I may either:
·     detain Mr Smith in custody until the ACAT orders otherwise;
·     order that Mr Smith submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to enable it to make a mental health order; or
·     make any other order I consider appropriate.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ACAT

ACAT held…

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 Murray Cameron Smith [No 2]

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Murray Cameron Smith [No 2] [2013] ACTSC 136
Case: [2013] ACTSC 136
Decision Date: 9 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Murray Cameron Smith [No 2] involved the defendant, Murray Cameron Smith, who had been found not guilty by reason of mental impairment for a charge of arson. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The primary issue before the court was whether an order needed to be made regarding Smith’s future conduct and care, and if so, what specific orders could be made under the relevant legislative provisions.

The court had to consider the implications of Section 323 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) which provides options for the court to make various orders following a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The court was tasked with determining whether Smith should be detained in custody, whether he should be ordered to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) for a mental health order, or if another appropriate order should be made. The submissions from the prosecution and the defence, as well as the detailed findings about Smith’s mental condition, played a crucial role in guiding the court’s decision.

In its judgment, the court found that while Section 323 of the Crimes Act allowed for several potential orders, the specific circumstances of Smith’s case did not necessitate any immediate action. The court considered that the existing arrangements for Smith’s care and supervision were sufficient, and thus, no further orders were warranted at that time. Consequently, the court decided not to make any specific order under Section 323, leaving Smith’s care and supervision to continue under the existing arrangements.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On 24 August 2012, I declared under s 321 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) that the accused, Murray Cameron Smith, was not guilty of arson by reason of mental impairment. That section of the Crimes Act required me to do so because Mr Smith had entered a plea of not guilty of that charge by reason of mental impairment.

2. The prosecution had agreed to the entering of the verdict, and I had considered the verdict to be appropriate.

3. Mr Smith had set fire to a jumper hanging in his wardrobe in the room of the house in which he lived, and the fire spread to the house.

4. The facts and the details of Mr Smith’s mental impairment are set out in my reasons for judgement: R v Smith [2012] ACTSC 146. I do not need to repeat that material but incorporate it in these reasons so far as is necessary.

5. Following the parties’ submissions, I considered, for reasons set out in my reasons for judgement, that I could and should proceed under s 323 of the Crimes Act and require Mr Smith to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) to enable it to make recommendations as to how I should deal with Mr Smith.

6. Thereafter, s 323 of the Crimes Act provides that, after considering the recommendation of the ACAT, I may either:

· detain Mr Smith in custody until the ACAT orders otherwise;

· order that Mr Smith submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to enable it to make a mental health order; or

· make any other order I consider appropriate.

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.