The Queen v Tracy Anne-Maree Roberts - [2004] ACTSC 46

THE QUEEN v TRACY ANNE-MAREE ROBERTS [2004] ACTSC 46 (15 June 2004)

CRIMINAL LAW – accused found unfit to plead – special hearing of charges – circumstantial case – satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the accused “committed the acts which constitute the offence charged”, Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 316(9)(c) or “engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged”, Crimes Amendment Act 2004 (ACT) s 5.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 315, s 316, s 337
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Crimes Amendment Act 2004 (ACT)
Criminal Code (ACT), s 13

The Queen v Ardler [2004] ACTCA 4,(unreported, 30 March 2004, Higgins CJ, Gray and Whitlam JJ)

No. SCC 32 of 2001

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 15 June 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 32 of 2001
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
against
TRACEY ANNE-MAREE ROBERTS

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  15 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

In light of these findings, the parties be heard further in this matter.

Tracey Anne-Maree Roberts was charged on indictment that on 30 December 2000 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory that she robbed Elia Faraj of $90.00 and at the time of doing so had with her an offensive weapon, namely a pair a scissors.

At a directions hearing on 24 May 2001, Crispin J was satisfied that there was a question as to the accused’s fitness to plead to the charge and he ordered that she submit to the jurisdiction of the Mental Health Tribunal to determine whether or not she was fit to plead.

Over the next 18 months, for reasons that are not material at this stage, further orders were made of a similar nature and on 24 April 2003 the Mental Health Tribunal determined that the accused was not fit to plead and was unlikely to become fit within 12 months.

That finding requires this court to deal with this matter pursuant to the provisions of Division 13 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Section 315 of that Act requires the court to conduct a special hearing for the purpose of the court being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the acts that constitute the offence charged. The hearing is to be conducted as nearly as possible as if it were an ordinary criminal proceeding and the accused is to be taken to have pleaded not guilty in respect of the offence charged. The finding that the accused committed the acts which constitute the offence charged, does not result in a conviction but rather a “non-acquittal”. In that circumstance, the Act provides the mode with which such person is to be dealt. On the other hand, on a finding being made that the accused did not commit the acts which constitute the offence charged, the accused is to be found not guilty of the offence charged and is to be dealt with as if the accused…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read The Queen v Tracy Anne-Maree Roberts and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] ACTSC 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Tracey Anne-Maree Roberts, who was charged with robbing Elia Faraj of $90 and possessing an offensive weapon, a pair of scissors, during the robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The key issue before the court was whether Roberts was fit to plead to the charges against her, and if not, whether there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the court beyond reasonable doubt that she committed the acts that constituted the offence.

The court found that Roberts was unfit to plead, a determination made by the Mental Health Tribunal. Therefore, the court had to conduct a special hearing under the provisions of Division 13 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The court was required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Roberts committed the acts which constitute the offence charged, as per s 315 of the Act. The court found that the circumstantial evidence against Roberts was overwhelming, including eyewitness testimony, a photo identification, and the possession of the scissors from a witness who had contact with Roberts before the incident. The court concluded that Roberts engaged in the conduct required for the offence charged, as defined by s 13 of the Criminal Code (ACT).

The court's decision hinged on the strength of the circumstantial evidence presented, which it found to be compelling enough to satisfy the beyond reasonable doubt standard. The court acknowledged the unreliability of eyewitness identification but considered it in the context of the overall circumstantial case. The court's judgment included detailed findings of fact and applied the principles of law relevant to special hearings for unfit-to-plead defendants. The court ordered further hearings to consider the appropriate disposition under the Crimes Amendment Act 2004 (ACT) and in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in The Queen v Ardler.

Orders