Regina v Bridge [2005] NSWCCA 122

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Bridge [2005] NSWCCA 122

HEARING DATE(S): 06/04/2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF: Hunt AJA at 1-26; Grove J at 27; Hall J at 28

DECISION: Appeal against the jury's finding dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Fitness to be tried hearing - minimum standards with which an accused must comply before he or she can be tried without unfairness or injustice - whether open to the jury on the evidence before it to be satisfied on the required balance of probabilities that the appellant was unfit to be tried.

Criminal Appeal Act 1912 LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230 CASES CITED: Regina v Prosser [1958] VR 45

Regina Crown PARTIES: Peter James Bridge Appellant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/2866

V Lydiard Crown COUNSEL: Unrepresented Appellant

S Kavanagh Crown SOLICITORS: Unrepresented Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/41/0073

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2004/2866 HUNT AJA GROVE J HALL J Wednesday 6 April 2005 REGINA v Peter James BRIDGE

Judgment 1 HUNT AJA: Peter James Bridge was found by a jury in the Wollongong District Court to be unfit to be tried on a charge of maliciously wounding one Stephen Clare with intent to do grievous bodily harm to him. The charge arises out of an altercation between the two men in which, it is alleged, the appellant, after saying that he was going to kill Mr Clare, threw Mr Clare to the floor head first, splitting the skin on his forehead to the degree that several stitches were required, and he attempted to choke him. The appellant was represented by counsel at the hearing before Judge Goldring, as required by s 12 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990. The relevant evidence consisted solely of a psychiatrist called by each party. 2 The appellant was initially refused legal aid for this appeal on the basis, according to a letter of 8 September 2004 from the Legal Aid Commission, that there is no appeal from a finding of unfitness to be tried, as s 5 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 refers only to a person convicted on indictment. The Legal Aid Commission's initial view was not correct. Section 2 of that Act defines "conviction" as including a person found unfit to be tried in accordance with s 14 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act. That is the section under which the appellant was found unfit to be tried in the District Court. The application for legal aid was subsequently reviewed by the Legal Aid Commission, and the Court has been informed this morning that the application for legal aid has now been refused on its merits. 3 The submissions filed by the appellant are mainly concerned with the facts to be investigated in the criminal trial of the charges against him, and they discuss the issues in that case by reference to such terms as res ipsa loquitur, double jeopardy, false pretence [sic], habeas corpus, audi alteram partem, certiorari, malicious prosecution, discrimination, victimisation, mandatory prohibitory injunction [sic] and res gestae. None of that is relevant in this appeal. 4 The appellant maintains that the charges against him have now been withdrawn. The original charge of inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do so was replaced by the charge of wounding with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm (a less serious offence), but it is wrong to suggest that the charges against him have been withdrawn. In fact, the Mental Health Review Tribunal has made a determination under s 16 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act that the appellant will not become fit to be tried for a period of twelve months after the jury's finding. The Attorney General has accordingly directed a special hearing pursuant to s 19 of that Act and a date for that hearing is apparently to be fixed shortly. 5 The appellant does complain that counsel representing him at the fitness to be tried proceedings disobeyed his instructions in a number of respects, but most of these complaints confuse the issues to be investigated in the fitness to be tried proceedings with those to be investigated in the criminal trial of the charges against him. He says that he was not permitted to address the jury at the hearing or to put forward evidence. The statute does not permit him to appear in person unless specifically allowed in the particular case (s 12), so he could not have addressed the jury. Most of the evidence which he suggests he would have put forward was irrelevant to the issues before the jury. 6 The appellant has, however, drawn our attention to one particular matter which, he says, counsel appearing for him in the hearing failed to investigate before the hearing. In his report, Dr Allnutt (one of the psychiatrists called) said: In my opinion [the appellant] presents with symptoms consistent with psychotic disorder. He manifests, in my view, ideas of grandiosity and persecution.