AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 21 August 2020

R v MC

[2020] NSWSC 1160

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIMINAL LAW FITNESS ENQUIRY QUESTION OF FITNESS TO BE TRIED “PRESSER” CRITERIA SINGLE ISSUE AT ANY TRIAL NO REQUIREMENT TO CHALLENGE JURORS

Citation: R v MC [2020] NSWSC 1160
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 August 2020
Judge: Wilson J

Background

A seventeen-year-old Taiwanese national, referred to as MC, appeared before the Supreme Court charged with murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, arising from events at a church in Chatswood on 3 January 2019. He did not speak English and had not been asked to enter a plea, because the question of his fitness to be tried had been raised before the proceedings could progress.

MC was sixteen at the time of the alleged offences. His mother had reported that he was diagnosed with an emotional disorder around age eight or nine, and with autism at age fourteen. He had been prescribed medication but stopped taking it in November 2018. His mother had brought him to Australia from Taiwan in December 2018, arriving just weeks before the alleged offences occurred.

Justice Hulme had previously directed that a formal fitness inquiry be held under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW). Wilson J conducted that inquiry on 21 August 2020, sitting alone as required by the Act.

  • Whether MC met the criteria for fitness to be tried as set out in R v Presser [1958] VR 45
  • Whether the fitness assessment was affected by the likelihood that any trial would be conducted in a simplified manner, including probable trial by judge alone, limited need to challenge jurors, and the possibility that the accused would not need to give evidence or provide detailed instructions

Decision

Two forensic psychiatrists, Dr Yumna Dhansay and Dr Adam Martin, gave evidence at the inquiry. Both concluded that MC suffered from schizophrenia against a background of autism spectrum disorder. Both were of the opinion that he was unfit to be tried, and that this situation was unlikely to change with time or treatment.

Dr Martin's assessment revealed that MC held paranoid beliefs about the judicial process, including concerns about corruption and judicial bribery. He was unable to adequately explain his understanding of the charges, the purpose of court proceedings, the roles of participants, or the nature of evidence. Dr Dhansay's findings were consistent, noting that MC said "let me put it this way I know nothing" when asked about court processes. Both doctors maintained their opinions in oral evidence even after being informed about the likely simplified manner of any trial.

Wilson J acknowledged that some of the Presser criteria, such as the right to challenge jurors, would have reduced relevance given the anticipated conduct of any trial. However, her Honour found that these concessions did not cure the fundamental deficits identified. MC still needed to understand the charges against him, meaningfully enter pleas, follow the proceedings, comprehend the evidence, and have at least a rudimentary understanding of the roles of court participants. The court was not persuaded that he could do any of those things.

Her Honour noted the practical disadvantage of a finding of unfitness, including delay in the final resolution of the proceedings. Nonetheless, Wilson J affirmed the fundamental principle that an accused cannot be brought to trial when unfit, and found that MC did not satisfy the Presser criteria.

Orders Made

  • MC was found unfit to be tried for the offences of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
  • The matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in accordance with s 14 of the Act
  • MC was remanded in custody pending further orders of the Court, pursuant to s 14(b)(iii) of the Act
  • The Registry was directed to provide the Mental Health Review Tribunal with a copy of the judgment and copies of the exhibits tendered at the inquiry

Key Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court found that a simplified or streamlined trial, including a judge-alone trial with limited evidentiary contest, does not automatically render an otherwise unfit accused capable of standing trial. The Presser threshold still requires an accused to understand the charges, enter a meaningful plea, and follow the proceedings.
  • Where an accused lacks even a rudimentary understanding of court processes, the roles of participants, and the nature of evidence, the fitness threshold is not met, even if some Presser criteria (such as the right to challenge jurors) are of reduced practical relevance in the circumstances.
  • Schizophrenia combined with autism spectrum disorder can, on the evidence before the court, produce a level of cognitive and communicative impairment sufficient to ground a finding of unfitness, particularly where two independent forensic psychiatrists give consistent opinions and the incapacity is assessed as unlikely to improve.
  • A finding of unfitness may operate to the accused's detriment by delaying final resolution of criminal proceedings. The court acknowledged this consequence but confirmed it cannot displace the fundamental requirement that an accused be fit before a trial proceeds.
  • Under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), a finding of unfitness triggers mandatory referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, with the accused held in custody pending further court orders.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 33(1)(a)
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 8(1), 10(1), 11, 14, 14(b)(iii)

Cases
- R v Presser [1958] VR 45 (the foundational statement of the criteria for fitness to be tried)
- Kesavarajah v R (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41