Citation: Logan v R [2004] NSWCCA 101
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 16 April 2004
Judge(s): Wood CJ at CL, Sperling J, Kirby J
Background
The appellant faced a charge of aggravated robbery in the District Court, arising from an incident in October 1999 in which he struck a victim on the head and took a wallet and $150 in cash from an ATM. He was represented by experienced criminal defence counsel and elected to be tried by judge alone.
Through his counsel, the appellant entered a special plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness. Two forensic psychiatrists, one retained by the prosecution and one by the defence, both concluded that the appellant was suffering from severe chronic schizophrenia at the time of the offence. Both considered the mental illness defence available to him. The trial judge accepted this evidence and returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness, ordering the appellant's detention in a psychiatric facility.
More than two years later, the appellant filed a notice of intention to appeal, representing himself. He raised several grounds, including that he had been unfit to stand trial, that the plea had been entered against his instructions, and that he was not at the scene of the offence at all.
Legal Issues
- Whether the appeal was competent given that the special plea had been entered on the appellant's own informed instructions
- Whether the appellant was unfit to stand trial at the time of the District Court proceedings
- Whether the plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness was entered contrary to the appellant's instructions
- Whether the evidence establishing the appellant's involvement in the offence was sound
Decision
The Court dismissed the appeal both for want of jurisdiction and on its merits. Sperling J, with whom Wood CJ at CL and Kirby J agreed, found that because the plea had been entered on the appellant's own informed instructions, the appeal was incompetent: a party cannot appeal against an outcome they effectively consented to.
On the question of fitness to stand trial, the Court accepted evidence from the appellant's own counsel, Ms Yehia, a barrister of 12 years' experience in criminal law. She had considered the issue and formed the view that the appellant was fit. Nothing raised at the appeal dislodged that assessment.
On the question of instructions, the Court accepted affidavit and contemporaneous note evidence establishing that the appellant himself had wished to raise the mental illness defence and had maintained that position after receiving and having explained to him the forensic psychiatry report and the consequences of the plea. The ground that the plea was entered against his wishes accordingly failed.
The remaining grounds, including the claim that the appellant was not present at the offence, were rejected. The special plea had admitted the objective elements of the offence, and the evidence at trial independently established the appellant's involvement. The appellant's suggestion at the hearing that the psychiatric evidence was false was not substantiated.
Orders Made
- Time for appeal extended to 18 October 2003
- Appeal dismissed
Key Takeaways
- A verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness, entered by counsel on a defendant's informed instructions, cannot competently be appealed by that defendant: the Court held the appeal was jurisdictionally incompetent on this basis alone.
- In dismissing the ground relating to fitness to stand trial, the Court of Criminal Appeal placed significant weight on the assessment of experienced defence counsel who had turned her mind to the question contemporaneously.
- A special plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness admits the objective elements of the offence, meaning an appellant cannot later claim they were absent from the scene or uninvolved in the conduct alleged.
- Where two forensic psychiatrists independently reached the same conclusions about both diagnosis and the availability of the mental illness defence, the trial court's acceptance of that evidence was well founded and not disturbed on appeal.
- Substantial delay in filing a notice of appeal does not, by itself, prevent the Court from extending time, but the appeal must still succeed on its merits and jurisdictional competency.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132
- Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 38, 39
Cases:
- Foy (1922) 38 WN (NSW) 20
- Grieg (1996) 89 A Crim R 254
- Re M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & Fin 200