Citation: R v Crispe [2014] NSWDC 196
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 28 July 2014
Judge: Cogswell SC DCJ
Background
The accused was called for trial on an indictment charging her with wounding a named individual with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, with an alternative charge of recklessly wounding the same person. She pleaded not guilty to both charges. The matter was anticipated to proceed as a judge-alone trial.
At the commencement of proceedings, both the prosecutor and defence counsel raised the question of the accused's fitness to stand trial. Medical material was available, and the judge was required by statute to conduct an inquiry before the trial could proceed.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused was unfit to be tried for the offences charged, within the meaning of s 5 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
- Whether the accused satisfied the common law criteria for fitness to stand trial as set out in Regina v Presser [1958] VR 45
Decision
His Honour was satisfied that the question of unfitness had been raised in good faith, as required before the inquiry could be conducted. Under s 10(1)(b) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), the court was obliged to hold an inquiry to determine the question.
Cogswell SC DCJ engaged the accused directly during the inquiry, asking her questions and then adjourning to allow her to read the statements to be tendered against her. Based on her answers, his Honour was satisfied that she understood the charges, appreciated the nature of the criminal proceedings, understood the judge's role, and could follow the course of proceedings in a general sense. He was also satisfied she understood the effect of the evidence against her, grasped the basis of her defence, could give appropriate instructions to counsel, and could give an account consistent with her defence if called to testify.
Two consultant forensic psychiatrists had each assessed the accused and separately concluded she was fit to be tried according to the Presser criteria. Because those assessments were conducted in the preceding year, his Honour supplemented the psychiatric opinions with his own direct questioning of the accused on the day of trial.
Neither party sought to make submissions, consistent with s 12(2) of the Act, which provides that fitness inquiries are not to be conducted in an adversarial manner and that no onus rests on either prosecution or defence. Having assessed all the material, his Honour concluded that the accused was fit to be tried.
Orders Made
• Patricia Crispe is fit to be tried for the offences that she is charged with.
Key Takeaways
- Under s 10(1)(b) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), a judge must conduct an inquiry into fitness to be tried once the question is raised in good faith, regardless of whether the raising comes from the prosecution or defence.
- The Presser criteria remain the applicable common law test for fitness to stand trial in NSW, requiring that an accused understand the charges, appreciate the nature of proceedings, follow what occurs in court, understand the evidence against them, comprehend their available defences, and be able to give instructions to counsel.
- A fitness inquiry under the Act is not adversarial in nature: s 12(2) expressly provides that it is not to be conducted in that manner, and no onus falls on either party.
- Where psychiatric opinions were formed on assessments conducted some time before trial, the District Court supplemented those opinions by directly questioning the accused on the day to confirm fitness remained current.
- Psychiatric reports from two forensic psychiatrists expressing opinions that an accused meets the Presser criteria, combined with satisfactory answers to direct questioning by the trial judge, were sufficient to ground a finding of fitness to stand trial.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 5, 10(1)(b), 12(2)
Cases
- Regina v Presser [1958] VR 45