R v Tuki (No. 3) [2013] NSWSC 203

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tuki (No. 3) [2013] NSWSC 203 Hearing dates: 15 March 2013 Decision date: 15 March 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Johnson J Decision: Accused fit to be tried. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - accused charged with murder and other offences - found by Court to be unfit to be tried - Mental Health Review Tribunal concludes thereafter that accused fit to be tried - Crown to proceed further against accused - accused found fit to be tried Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 Cases Cited: R v Tuki [2012] NSWSC 1436 R v Tuki (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 196 R v Presser (1958) VR 45 Texts Cited: --- Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Ray Tuki (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr K McKay (Crown) Mr P Winch (Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Courtroom Lawyers Sydney (Accused) File Number(s): 2010/223518 Publication restriction: ---

Judgment 1JOHNSON J: On 23 November 2012, I conducted a fitness inquiry with respect to the Accused, Ray Tuki, following which I found that he was unfit to be tried for a number of serious offences charged against him in this Court, including murder: R v Tuki [2012] NSWSC 1436. 2It may be taken that the contents of that judgment, which set out the charges against Mr Tuki, the evidence before the Court on that inquiry and a statement of applicable legal principles, are incorporated by reference in the present judgment. 3Following the finding of unfitness, Mr Tuki was referred to The Mental Health Review Tribunal ("MHRT") as required by the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. 4On 28 February 2013, the Honourable Harold Sperling QC, Deputy President of the MHRT, wrote to the Court providing a copy of the MHRT's reasons and determination concerning Mr Tuki. 5As my judgment of 23 November 2012 and the reasons of the MHRT make clear, Mr Tuki had been found unfit to be tried with respect to two sets of charges, one set in the District Court and the other group being the present charges in this Court. 6The MHRT conducted a hearing on 17 January 2013. The MHRT was constituted by the Honourable Harold Sperling QC as Deputy President, Dr Michael Giuffrida, psychiatrist, and Ms Meredith Martin. The MHRT had a volume of documentary evidence before it and, in addition, heard evidence from a number of persons who were involved in the treatment and care of Mr Tuki. The reasons of the MHRT, which are in evidence before me on this inquiry, will speak for themselves. 7It is sufficient to observe that Dr Matthew Hearps, consultant psychiatrist, was asked to give an opinion to the MHRT concerning the fitness of Mr Tuki to be tried, by reference to the test in R v Presser (1958) VR 45. Dr Hearps answered affirmatively concerning the application of the Presser test to Mr Tuki, and concluded that he was fit to be tried on both the District Court and the Supreme Court matters (pages 7, 9, MHRT reasons). 8The MHRT, which included an expert psychiatrist member, found on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Tuki was fit to stand trial (page 6, MHRT reasons). Accordingly, in the documents dated 28 February 2013, the MHRT informed the Court that Mr Tuki was now fit to be tried for the offences charged in this Court. 9Having been notified of this finding, the Court proceeded to take steps in accordance with s.29 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. Firstly, it was necessary to inquire whether the Director of Public Prosecutions was to further proceed against Mr Tuki. The Director has indicated that it is intended to proceed further against him. In those circumstances, the obligation of the Court is to hold a further inquiry as to Mr Tuki's fitness as a soon as practicable. That is what I am undertaking today. 10I should observe that, because of the temporal coincidence of the MHRT's conclusion that Mr Tuki was fit to be tried and the listing of a trial of alleged co-offenders of Mr Tuki in this Court, I gave consideration earlier this week to the question of whether (if Mr Tuki was fit to be tried) his trial ought be joined to the trial of the three co-Accused. 11The Crown indicated that it did not wish any deferral of the trial in circumstances where any delay was likely to be at a least some weeks. The Crown was ready to proceed with that trial, as were the counsel for the three accused in that trial. 12My reasons for determining that this fitness inquiry should proceed promptly, but separately from the scheduled trial, are contained in a judgment of 11 March 2013: R v Tuki (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 196. 13In addition to the reasons of the MHRT with respect to Mr Tuki, further evidence has been placed before the Court in the form of a report of Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, dated 13 March 2013. As my judgment of 23 November 2012 makes clear, Dr Martin examined Mr Tuki on a number of occasions on behalf of Mr Tuki's legal representatives, and he had expressed the opinion that Mr Tuki was unfit to be tried. 14Dr Martin examined Mr Tuki again on 13 March 2013. Dr Martin had available to him the reasons of the MHRT dated 28 February 2013. 15It is Dr Martin's opinion, having applied the Presser test, that Mr Tuki's mental state: "... is much improved, he appears to understand the charges, he knows of different pleas and basically what they mean, knows the basic functions of the court, is able to express his wishes coherently, able to discuss issues with his legal team, and probably able to challenge evidence or members of the jury." 16Dr Martin concluded, "I think he is likely to be found fit to stand trial". 17Having regard to the evidence, a finding should be made, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Tuki is fit to be tried for these matters. In making this finding, I have applied the principles as summarised in R v Tuki at [4]-[13]. 18I am satisfied that Mr Tuki is fit to be tried for the offences with which he is charged before this Court. 19The effect of this finding is that, under s.30 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, the proceedings brought against Mr Tuki in respect to the offences are to recommence or continue in accordance with the appropriate criminal procedures. In this case, the proceedings are to continue (the proceedings having been held in abeyance pending determination of the question of whether Mr Tuki was fit to be tried). 20I adjourn the criminal proceedings against Mr Tuki to the Arraignments List on 5 April 2013. Bail is refused.