Williams v Im - [2019] ACTSC 234

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Williams v IM
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 234
Hearing Date:	21 August 2019
DecisionDate:	28 August 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal allowed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY – Criminal responsibility of children aged between 10 and 14 – Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 26 – Where the child entered pleas of guilty – Where the magistrate accepted the plea – Whether prosecution must discharge “the presumption of doli incapax” – Whether prosecution’s legal burden discharged by plea of guilty
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 7.2, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, dictionary Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 25, 26, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, dictionary
Cases Cited:	BC v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 111 Marshall v Lowndes (1997) 138 FLR 313 Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501 Paul Campbell (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 87 R v B (an infant) [1979] Qd R 417 R v JA [2007] ACTSC 51; 1 ACTLR 126 RP v The Queen [2016] HCA 53; 259 CLR 641
Texts Cited:	Criminal Code Bill 1994 (Cth) Criminal Law Officers Committee, ‘Model Criminal Code Chapter 2: General Principles of Criminal Responsibility’ (Discussion Draft, July 1992) Criminal Law Officers Committee, ‘Model Criminal Code Chapter 2: General Principles of Criminal Responsibility’ (Final Report, December 1992) Explanatory Memorandum, Criminal Code Bill 1994 (Cth) Stephen Odgers, Principles of Federal Criminal Law (Lawbook Co, 3^rd ed, 2015)
Parties:	Rhys Howard Williams (Appellant) IM (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel K McCann (Appellant) J Robertson (Respondent)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 25 of 2019
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Children’s Court Before: Magistrate Cook Date of Decision: 17 April 2019 Case Title: The Police v [I M] Court File Numbers: CH 989 of 2018, CH 990 of 2018, CH 59 of 2019

Murrell CJ

The Appeal

The prosecutor in the Children’s Court (the prosecutor) appealed against a decision of Magistrate Cook (the Magistrate) to dismiss charges against the respondent child (the child) because the prosecutor had failed to displace the “presumption of doli incapax”.

On the appeal, the prosecutor contended that the child’s pleas of guilty to the charges had constituted both formal admissions of the elements of the offences and an admission that the child was criminally responsible for the offences.

I consider that the Magistrate’s approach was wrong for a more fundamental reason.

The appeal raised the following issues:

(a)In relation to proof of criminal responsibility, what is the interaction between the burdens of proof imposed by ss 26 and 58 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code)?
(b)Was any prosecution burden to establish criminal responsibility discharged by the child’s pleas of guilty?

Proceedings in the Children’s Court

The child was charged with committing offences of aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery when he was 12 years old.

21 March 2019

On 21 March 2019, the child appeared before the Children’s Court.…

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 Williams v Im

Details

AGLC: Williams v Im [2019] ACTSC 234
Case: [2019] ACTSC 234
Decision Date: 28 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Im was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute involved the criminal responsibility of a child aged between 10 and 14 years. Under the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) section 26, a child in this age bracket is presumed not to have the capacity to commit a crime unless the presumption is rebutted. In this case, the child had entered pleas of guilty, and the magistrate accepted these pleas. The court had to decide whether the prosecution had discharged the presumption of doli incapax and whether the prosecution's legal burden was discharged by the plea of guilty.

The court examined the legal obligations of the prosecution when dealing with a child in this age group. It was established that the prosecution bears the legal burden to rebut the presumption of doli incapax, which means the child lacks the capacity to understand the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong. The court considered whether the acceptance of a guilty plea by the magistrate sufficed to discharge this burden. The court held that a mere acceptance of a guilty plea by a magistrate does not automatically discharge the prosecution's burden to rebut the presumption of doli incapax. The court found that the prosecution had not adequately discharged its legal burden, which led to an improper acceptance of the child's guilty plea.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, finding that the lower court had erred in accepting the child's guilty plea without proper consideration of the prosecution's burden. The court ordered that the matter be returned to the lower court for further consideration in light of the proper legal standards. The final orders were that the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings consistent with the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.

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.