R v Crispe [2014] NSWDC 196

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crispe [2014] NSWDC 196 Hearing dates: 28 July 2014 Decision date: 28 July 2014 Before: Cogswell SC DCJ Decision: The defendant is fit to be tried for the defences she is charged with. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - fitness to plead - fitness to be tried - mental health - offences against the person - wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - understanding of nature of proceedings - common law test for assessing a person's fitness for trial -"Presser" criteria - medical evidence - forensic psychiatrist Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) Cases Cited: Regina v Presser [1958] VR 45 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: The Crown Tricia Oi Foong Crispe, offender Representation: Mr P Thompson, Crown Mr S Schaudin, Offender File Number(s): 2012/00270941

Judgment 1Tricia Crispe was called for trial before me this morning. She was charged by indictment with wounding Phillip Crispe with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and, as an alternative charge, of recklessly wounding Phillip Crispe. She pleaded not guilty. 2Mr P Thompson, who appears as the prosecutor, mentioned the question of Ms Crispe's fitness to plead. Mr Schaudin of counsel, who appears for Ms Crispe, and Mr Thompson both told me that there was medical material to be tendered concerning Ms Crispe's fitness for trial. 3It seemed to me, in light of what Mr Thompson and Mr Schauden said, that there was a question raised about Ms Crispe's "unfitness to be tried for an offence". I am referring to s 5 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW). In accordance with s 10(1)(b) of that Act, I must conduct an inquiry in order to determine whether Ms Crispe is unfit to be tried for the offence. 4I am of the view that the question has been raised in good faith. There is nothing to suggest otherwise and indeed, the medical material which I have read this morning confirms that. 5I commenced the inquiry this morning by asking Ms Crispe some questions. As a result of her answers to those questions, I am satisfied that Ms Crispe understands what she is charged with. I am satisfied that she is able to plead to the charge and understands generally the nature of the criminal proceedings which are brought against her. She understands my role in determining the case in what is, I understand, likely to be a judge alone trial.I am satisfied that she will be able to follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense. I asked her to read, between the adjournment this morning and now, the early afternoon, the statements which will be tendered against her in the proceedings. I have just now asked her whether she has read those and she did. I am satisfied, as a result of what she has told me, that she is able to understand the substantial effect of what is said against her; that is, the evidence which will be tendered against her. 6I am satisfied that she understands the basis of a defence, which I am told she is to make, and that she is able to give appropriate instructions to her counsel. As a result of the exchange between her and me, I am satisfied that if she were called to give evidence, that she would be able to give an account consistent with her defence. I am satisfied that she has sufficient capacity to be able to decide what defence she will rely on and to make that defence and her version of facts known to the Court and to her counsel. 7The matters which I have just referred to are those set out in the classic common law test for assessing a person's fitness for trial. The case is Regina v Presser [1958] VR 45 at 48. In addition, I have read material which was made available to me by Mr Thompson, which includes medical evidence. There are reports from two consultant forensic psychiatrists. Dr Stephen Allnutt saw Ms Crispe on 25 October last year. Dr Allnutt expressed the opinion as a result of that consultation, and material which he was supplied, that "she is fit to stand trial according to Presser criteria". Dr Allnutt expressed that opinion after assessing the various criteria and commenting on them. Dr Richard Furst saw Ms Crispe on 4 March last year. After reviewing the criteria for assessing fitness, he too expressed "the opinion that Ms Crispe was fit to be tried". 8Because both of those psychiatrists expressed their opinions based upon consultations last year, I engaged Ms Crispe directly by asking her the questions which I have referred to and which are recorded in the transcript. 9I have invited both Mr Thompson and Mr Schauden to address me, and neither of them have asked to do that. I can understand why. The proceedings are, after all, "not to be conducted in an adversary manner" as provided for by s 12(2) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. There is no onus on either the prosecution or the defence. 10Having examined myself the criteria set out in Presser and assessed the information which I have referred to, I am of the opinion that Patricia Crispe is fit to be tried for the offences that she is charged with.