Citation: R v Griffiths [2017] NSWSC 1666
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 1 December 2017
Judge(s): Hidden AJ
Background
The accused faced a charge of murder. In November 2016, Mathews AJ had found him unfit to stand trial, concluding that he suffered from schizophrenia and held delusional beliefs that his legal representatives were corrupt and part of a conspiracy to secure his conviction through fabricated evidence. As a result of those findings, the matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Over the following year, the accused received treatment within the prison system, including anti-psychotic medication, and was periodically reviewed by the Tribunal. By late 2017, both the Tribunal and the forensic psychiatrists who had previously assessed him reported a marked improvement in his mental state.
The matter returned before Hidden AJ for a fresh assessment of fitness to stand trial in light of that treatment and the updated psychiatric evidence.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused had, through treatment, become fit to stand trial following his earlier finding of unfitness
- Whether the accused now met the fitness criteria established in R v Presser [1958] VR 45, as affirmed by the High Court in Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
Decision
Both forensic psychiatrists, Dr Gerald Chew (instructed by the defence) and Professor David Greenberg (instructed by the Crown), provided updated reports in November 2017. Both concluded that the accused's schizophrenia was now in remission of its positive symptoms as a result of treatment, and that he met the Presser criteria for fitness to stand trial.
Professor Greenberg found that the accused had an adequate understanding of the trial process and the roles of the judge, jury, prosecutor, and his own legal representatives. Critically, the accused indicated he could trust his lawyers and was satisfied with their representation. Professor Greenberg also found that the accused could appreciate the substantial effect of evidence, give a coherent account of himself at the time of the alleged offence, and make decisions about his defence, including potential defences of mental illness or substantial impairment.
Professor Greenberg noted one qualification: fitness was contingent on the accused remaining compliant with his psychiatric medication and continuing with mental health follow-up. Senior counsel for the accused also confirmed from the bar table that he and his instructing solicitor were able to communicate with the accused and obtain intelligible instructions.
Hidden AJ accepted the unanimous expert opinion and the confirmation from defence counsel, and was satisfied that the accused was now fit to stand trial.
Orders Made
- The accused was found fit to stand trial, with proceedings to continue in accordance with normal trial procedure under s 13 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
- The matter was placed in the arraignments list for Friday, 9 February 2018
- The accused was to remain in custody in the meantime
Key Takeaways
- Fitness to stand trial is not a permanent finding. A prior determination of unfitness does not preclude a later finding of fitness where the accused's mental state has improved through treatment.
- The Presser criteria, affirmed by the High Court in Kesavarajah, remained the applicable standard for assessing fitness, covering matters such as the capacity to understand proceedings, instruct counsel, and decide on a defence.
- Under s 13 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, once fitness is established, proceedings return to the normal trial process.
- Concurrent expert opinion from both the defence and Crown psychiatrists, combined with confirmation from defence counsel that intelligible instructions could be obtained, satisfied the court that the fitness threshold was met.
- Where an accused's psychiatric condition is in remission rather than resolved, expert reports may qualify a fitness finding by reference to continued compliance with medication and mental health treatment.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 13
Cases
- R v Presser [1958] VR 45
- Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230
- R v Griffiths [2016] NSWSC 1571