Roberts v R [2023] NSWCCA 187

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Roberts v R [2023] NSWCCA 187 Hearing dates: 13-14 June 2023 Date of orders: 28 July 2023 Decision date: 28 July 2023 Before: Kirk JA at [1]; Davies J at [145]; Yehia J at [151] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Uphold the appeal. (3) Set aside the convictions and sentence with respect to counts 1, 3 and 5 and order a retrial on those counts. (4) List the matter in the arraignment list in the District Court on 11 August 2023. (5) Pursuant to s 578A(4)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) the name of the applicant, William Keith Roberts, may be published identifying him as the applicant in this matter. Catchwords: CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Fitness to be tried — Where fitness to be tried was not raised at the trial and was first raised on appeal — What test to be applied — Significance of Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provision Act 2020 (NSW) — Identity of the primary decision-maker under the Act is a judge rather than jury or administrative tribunal — Whether previous case law distinguishable based on identity of the primary decision-maker — Whether applicant was not or may not have been fit to stand trial — Applicant had dementia at time of trial affecting his manner of presentation and cognitive function — Significance of expert evidence on fitness — Where jury unaware that the applicant was affected by dementia — Where applicant's "argumentative and obstructive" presentation used to assert that the applicant was lying in his evidence CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — Where applicant found guilty on two counts and not guilty on three separate counts — Capable of reconciling differences in the evidence in support of separate counts — Where witness's reliability is in issue, inconsistencies between accounts will not necessarily lead to a conclusion that the witness is unreliable on all matters Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 578A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 12(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 80(a) Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 68, 79 Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 10(2), 11, 11A Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provision Act 2020 (NSW), cll 1, 7, 7A; ss 35, 36, 44, 47; Pt 4 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Regulation 2021 (NSW), reg 32 Mental Health Legislation Amendment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2008 (NSW) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021, rr 4.2-4.12 Cases Cited: AS v R [2022] NSWCCA 291 Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469; [2012] HCA 59 Barney v R [2023] NSWCCA 85 Black v The Queen (1993) 179 CLR 44; [1993] HCA 71 BW v R [2023] NSWCCA 146 Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1; [2004] HCA 39 CSR Limited v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 64 Dansie v The Queen (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25 Davies and Cody v The King (1937) 57 CLR 170; [1937] HCA 27 Eastman v Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) (2003) 214 CLR 318; [2003] HCA 28 Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1; [2000] HCA 29 Edwards v The Queen (2021) 273 CLR 585; [2021] HCA 28 Feili v R [2015] NSWCCA 43 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 Gallagher v The Queen (1986) 160 CLR 392; [1986] HCA 26 Ganiji v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 208 Garcia-Gados v R; MH v R [2023] NSWCCA 145 Gett v Tabet (2009) 109 NSWLR 1; [2009] NSWCA 76 Hofer v R [2019] NSWCCA 244 Hofer v The Queen (2021) 95 ALJR 937; [2021] HCA 36 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 JM v R [2017] NSWCCA 138 JN v R [2019] NSWCCA 287 Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41 Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 306 Lazarus v Independent Commission Against Corruption (2017) 94 NSWLR 36; [2017] NSWCA 37 at [87] Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2009] HCA 30 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35 McNamara v Consumer Trade and Tenancy Tribunal (2005) 221 CLR 646; [2005] HCA 55 MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 MRW v R [2011] NSWCCA 260 Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1, [1980] HCA 16 Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9 Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12 PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Kent (unreported, 25 September 1996) R v Khallouf [1981] VR 360 R v Presser [1958] VR 45 R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284; [2004] NSWCCA 7 R v RTI (2003) 58 NSWLR 438; [2003] NSWCCA 283 R v Stephen Mifsud (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 8 November 1995, unreported) R v Subramanian [2002] NSWCCA 372 R v Tier (2001) 121 A Crim R 509; [2001] NSWCCA 53 Robinson v R [2008] NSWCCA 64 SC v R [2023] NSWCCA 60 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40 TK v The Queen (2009) 74 NSWLR 299; [2009] NSWCCA 151 TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46 Totaan v R (2022) 108 NSWLR 17; [2022] NSWCCA 75 Tuigamala v R [2006] NSWCCA 380 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; [1979] HCA 9 Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 WR v R [2023] NSWCCA 38 Xie v R [2022] NSWCCA 185 Texts Cited: Hansard, Legislative Assembly, 3 June 2020, 2352-2353 Perry Herzfeld and Thomas Prince, Interpretation (2nd edition, Lawbook, 2020) Category: Principal judgment Parties: William Keith Roberts (Appellant) Rex (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: T Game SC and D Barrow (Appellant) E Balodis and S Lind (Respondent)