The Queen v Trent Alan WILLIAMS - [2011] ACTSC 76

THE QUEEN V TRENT ALAN WILLIAMS
[2011] ACTSC 76 (3 May 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – accused unfit to plead or becoming incapable during trial – investigation of fitness – psychiatrist changing his opinion – accused found unfit to plead – no issue of principle.

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 311, 314, 315A, 315C, 316, Div 13.2
Criminal Code 2001 (ACT), ss 308, 311
Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 4733, 4735A

Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1
The Queen v Fisher [2011] ACTSC 56
W v The Queen (2001) 115 FCR 41

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 292 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 3 May 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 292 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN
V
TRENT ALAN WILLIAMS

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  3 May 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

Trent Alan Williams is unfit to plead to the indictment dated 3 May 2011, and is unlikely to become fit to plead within twelve months.

AND THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The proceedings be adjourned to 9 May 2011 to consider setting a date for a special hearing.

The accused, Trent Alan Williams, has been committed for trial to this court on charges that on 7 September 2009 he entered certain premises in Canberra as a trespasser intending to steal property in them and of theft of property from those premises, the property being valued at $2600.
At the first directions hearing in this court under r 4733 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) (the Rules), a question arose as to the fitness of Mr Williams to plead, and in order to be able to reach the level of satisfaction required for a finding under s 314(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), I ordered a mental health report as to Mr Williams’ fitness to plead.
A report of Dr Graham George dated 21 September 2010 was prepared but was ambiguous about the relevant issue. In it, Dr George opined:
On his current medication, it does appear that he has reasonable clarity so far as his understanding of his circumstances are concerned. Intrusive delusional beliefs did not appear to be impacting on him such that he did not understand the criteria associated with fitness to plead on the day of assessment. However, this may not be the case in another week’s time. Therefore, I have considerable reservations in assessing him as fit to plead on this occasion. I believe the court should weigh up this factor in its consideration of his ongoing ability regarding his fitness to plead
On 11 November 2010 I again considered the matter. On that day I also had a report of Dr John Kasinathan dated 14 October 2010, which diagnosed Mr Williams as having schizophrenia with auditory hallucinations and delusions which, “persisted in the absence of substances.” He also met the criteria for cannabis, alcohol and heroin abuse or…

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 Trent Alan WILLIAMS 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: [2011] ACTSC 76
Decision Date: 3 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought proceedings against Trent Alan Williams in the Supreme Court of Victoria, alleging criminal offences. The dispute centred on the fitness of Williams to stand trial. The Court had to determine whether Williams was fit to plead at the time of the trial and whether the proceedings should continue. The legal issues involved the procedure for assessing the fitness of an accused person to plead and the consequences if the accused is found unfit to plead.

The court examined the procedures followed in determining Williams' fitness, including the role of psychiatrists in assessing fitness and the implications of a psychiatrist changing their opinion during the trial. The court considered whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in continuing the trial despite the psychiatrist's change of opinion and whether the decision to find Williams unfit to plead was justified. The court held that the trial judge's decision to find Williams unfit to plead was not an error of principle.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge acted within his jurisdiction and followed the appropriate procedures in assessing Williams' fitness. The court concluded that the psychiatrist's change of opinion did not invalidate the trial judge's decision and that there was no error of principle in finding Williams unfit to plead. The court upheld the trial judge's decision, confirming that the findings and orders made were correct and should stand as is.

Orders