The Queen v Peter John Gibson - [2006] ACTSC 114

THE QUEEN v PETER JOHN GIBSON
[2006] ACTSC 114 (24 November 2006)

TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Assault and recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – part of ear bitten off.
MENTAL STATE DEFENCES – Sane automatism – evidence of mental illness – special verdicts of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68A

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 33

Crimes Act 1900, s 321, 322, 324

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250

R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107

R v Tran [2003] ACTSC 53

R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 48

R v Blevins (1988) 48 SASR 65

R v Kaufusi [2005] NSWCCA 434

Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205

The Queen v Falconer (1990)171 CLR 30

R v Milloy [1993] 1 Qd R 298

Bratty v Attorney-General (Northern Ireland) [1963] AC 386

R v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266

No. SCC 106 of 2006

Judge: Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 24 November 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SCC 106 of 2006
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

THE QUEEN
v

PETER JOHN GIBSON

ORDER

Judge:  Connolly J
Date:  24 November 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

In relation to count 1 of the indictment of 6 November 2006 that alleges that Peter John Gibson on 26 September 2004 at Canberra did assault Kathleen Mary Gimson, there be entered a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

In relation to count 2 of the indictment of 6 November 2006 that alleges that Peter John Gibson on 26 September 2004 at Canberra did recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm on Deborah Anne Gimson, there be entered a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

In relation to count 3 of the indictment of 6 November 2006 that alleges that Peter John Gibson on 26 September 2004 at Canberra did assault Trent Madders, there be entered a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment.

Peter John Gibson submit to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to enable the Tribunal to make a mental health order.

The accused, Peter John Gibson, stands charged that he did on 26 September 2004 at Canberra assault Kathleen Mary Gimson, that he did on the same day recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm on Deborah Anne Gimson, and that he did on the same day assault Trent Madders. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. He had, in accordance with the provisions of s 68A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (the Supreme Court Act) elected to be tried by judge alone. The procedures to be followed in a trial by judge alone are set out in s 68C which relevantly provides:

68CVerdict of judge in criminal proceedings
(1)A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for…

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 Peter John Gibson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Peter John Gibson [2006] ACTSC 114
Case: [2006] ACTSC 114
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter John Gibson was charged with assault and recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by judge alone. The central issue was whether Gibson's conduct was voluntary. The defence argued that his actions were involuntary and amounted to sane automatism. The prosecution accepted that there was evidence to raise the issue of automatism, but argued that there was no evidence to support a verdict of not guilty by reason of sane automatism. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of sane automatism. However, the evidence did establish that Gibson was suffering from a psychotic disorder such that he was not criminally responsible for his actions. The court found him not guilty by reason of mental impairment on all counts and ordered that he submit to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal.

Orders