https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7111-1651
![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Forensic mental health clinicians are often tasked with assessing and reporting upon a defendant’s fitness for trial. However, because fitness is a legal construct, not a clinical one, clinicians are often unaware of the impairment thresholds to be found unfit to stand trial. Common law holds that only ‘basic’ abilities are required to be fit in Australia, yet what constitutes basic abilities is not defined in legislation. The following article presents a review of fitness case law and outlines how R v PresserFootnote1 (‘Presser’) has been interpreted in the Australian courts. The seven Presser standards are systematically reviewed to explain what abilities a defendant must possess under each criterion and the degree of impairment required to be found fit or unfit to stand trial, and indicates where proportionality (eg the seriousness of the charge, complexity of the evidence) has been applied to raise or lower the threshold for fitness.
Notes
1 [1958] VR 45.
2 Thomas Grisso, Competence to Stand Trial Evaluations—Just the Basics (Professional Resource Press, 2014).
3 [1958] VR 45.
4 Grant A Blake, James RP Ogloff and Natalia Antolak-Saper, ‘An Overview of Fitness to Stand Trial Legislation in Australia’ [Under review].
5 Grant A Blake, James RP Ogloff and Natalia Antolak-Saper, ‘Special Consideration to the Assessment of Fitness to Stand Trial in Australia’ (2022) Psychiatr Psychol Law. Doi: 10.1080/13218719.2022.2100839.
6 Grant A Blake, James RP Ogloff and Richard Rogers, Australian and New Zealand Evaluation of Fitness to Stand Trial—Revised.
7 The steps to finding case law are beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, clinicians may benefit from practise searching R v Presser in AustLII, then use the ‘Note-Up’ function to identify cases that have cited Presser. The cases can be filtered jurisdiction and year to identify matters that may be most relevant for consideration.
8 See guideline 7.1 of the Ethical guidelines for psychological practice in forensic contexts by the Australian Psychological Society (2014).
9 Guideline 7.3 of Ethical guidelines for psychological practice in forensic contexts by the Australian Psychological Society (2014).
10 Richard E Redding, Marnita Y Floyd, and Gary L Hawk, ‘What Judges and Lawyers Think About the Testimony of Mental Health Experts: A Survey of the Courts and Bar’ (2001) 19(4) Behavioral Sciences & the Law 583–594.
11 [2008] NSWCCA 64 (26 June 2008).
12 R v Fisher [2011] 210 A Crim R 199 at [63]; R v Stevens [2009] SADC 143 (16 December 2009); R v Sutherland [2012] ACTSC 62 (4 May 2012).
13 R v Presser [1958] VR 45. For a discussion on the concept of unfitness in Australia, see Ian Freckelton, ‘Chapter 8: Fitness to Stand Trial under Australian Law’ in Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2018) 154–159.
14 Footnote 22 in Chapter 8.
15 See for example, Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfit to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic), ss 6; 38K.
16 See for example, R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 152; R v Gillespie (1987) 30 A Crim R 14; R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284.
17 Ian Freckelton, ‘Chapter 8: Fitness to Stand Trial under Australian Law’ in Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2018) 156.
18 R v Abdulla (2005) 93 SASR 208.
19 Grant Blake, James RP Ogloff and Natalia Antolak-Saper, ‘An Overview of Fitness to Stand Trial Legislation in Australia’ [Under review]. Also see, Ian Freckelton, ‘Chapter 8: Fitness to Stand Trial under Australian Law’ in Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2018) 154–174.
20 Ian Freckelton ‘Chapter 8: Fitness to Stand Trial under Australian Law’ in Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2018) 154–159.
21 Ibid.
22 Gianni Pirelli, William H Gottdiener and Patricia A Zapf, ‘A Meta-analytic Review of Competency to Stand Trial Research’ (2011) 17(1) Psychology, Public Policy and Law 1–53.
23 Grant A Blake and James RP Ogloff, ‘The Correlates of Unfitness to Stand Trial in Victoria, Australia’ (2020) 20(1) International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 48–62.
24 The term comprehend is frequently used in the Australian legal literature and empirical literature. For example, Ian Freckelton and colleagues have written extensively about fitness for trial in Australia, including summarising domestic and international criticisms of Australian fitness laws. The reader may wish to consider Ian Freckelton and Patrick Keyzer, ‘Fitness to Stand Trial and Disability Discrimination: An International Critique of Australia’ (2017) 24(5) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 770–783 and Ian Freckelton (n 34). Regarding the Australian empirical literature, the term ‘comprehend’ is often used, such as in Astrid Birgden and Don Thomspon, ‘The Assessment if Fitness to Stand Trial for Defendants with Intellectual Disability: A proposed Assessment Procedure Involving Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers’ (2002) 6(2) Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 207–214.
25 Judicial College of Victoria, Criminal Charge Book, [10.1.2—Charge: Criteria for Fitness].
26 Oxford Languages Dictionary (online at 10 August 2022) ‘understand’ (def 1).
27 R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 152.
28 Grant Blake and James RP Ogloff, ‘The Correlates of Unfitness to Stand Trial in Victoria, Australia’ (2020) 20(1) International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 48–62.
29 Egan, Hawkins and Burr v JG [2010] ACTSC (18 June 2010) at [81] per Refshauge J.
30 R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 152. Also see, Samantha van der Wijngaart, Russell Hawkins and Peter Golus, ‘The Role of Psychologists in the South Australian Fitness to Stand Trial Process’ (2015) 22(1) Psychology, Public Policy and Law 75–93.
31 R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 152 at [40] per Martin J.
32 See for example, R v Presser.
33 R v Griffith [2008] ACTSC 77 (27 August 2008).
34 R v Griffith [2008] ACTSC 77 (27 August 2008) at [28(a)] and [30] per Penfold J.
35 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021).
36 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021) at [61] per Loukas-Karlsson J (emphasis added).
37 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021) at [64] per Loukas-Karlsson J.
38 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021).
39 Presently, the ability to enter a plea does not operate independently of the other fitness criteria. This may change in the future given proposals to develop a legislated test of fitness to plead guilty: Tasmania Law Reform Institute, Review of the Defence of Insanity in s 16 of the Criminal Code and Fitness to Plead (Issues Paper No 27, February 2019) 40; Victorian Law Reform Commission, Review of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Report, June 2014) 76.
40 Meissner v The Queen 184 CLR 132 at [19] per Deane J.
41 R v Fisher [2011] ACTSC 56 (1 April 2011) at [39] per Refshauge J.
42 R v Griffith [2008] ACTSC 77 (27 August 2008) at [29] per Penfold J.
43 Egan, Hawkins and Burr v JG [2010] ACTSC (18 June 2010) at [88] per Refshauge J.
44 R v Polanski [1999] NSWSC 433 (5 May 1999).
45 R v Monfries [2011] ACTSC 203 (9 December 2011) at [23] per Refshauge J.
46 Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1. Also see, Ian Freckelton, ‘Chapter 8: Fitness to Stand Trial under Australian Law’ in Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (Oxford University Press, 2018) 159.
47 Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1 at [11] per Barwick CJ.
48 Heffernan v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 14.
49 Heffernan v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 14.
50 Heffernan v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 14 at [138] per Martin CJ, Mildren and Thomas JJ.
51 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021).
52 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021) at [87] per Loukas-Karlsson J.
53 Heffernan v The Queen [2005] NTCCA 14.
54 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021).
55 The Crown has a right to ‘stand aside’ potential jurors and exercise challenge for a cause. Challenges result in the immediate exclusion of the prospective juror from the jury, whereas prospective jurors stood aside may still become part of the jury. The rules governing stand asides and challenges vary between each state and territory.
56 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021).
57 R v Steurer [2008] ACTSC 141 (16 December 2008) at [41].
58 [2010] ACTSC 54 (21 June 2020).
59 R v Bailiff [2010] ACTSC 54 (21 June 2020) at [60].
60 R v Dellamarta [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020) at [65].
61 R v Dellamarta [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020) at [62]–[63].
62 R v BF (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 346 at [12].
63 R v BF (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 346 at [19].
64 R v BF (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 346 at [23].
65 R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 152 at [29].
66 R v Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61 (27 May 2009) at [ 28(c)].
67 [1958] VR 45.
68 [2008] NSWDC 122.
69 R v Chanthasaeng [2008] NSWDC 122 [46]–[47].
70 (1980) 147 CLR 1.
71 Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1 at [9].
72 R v Stevens [2009] SADC 143 (16 December 2009); R v Sutherland [2012] ACTSC 62 (4 May 2012); Robinson v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 64 (26 June 2008).
73 R v Dellamarta [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020).
74 R v Wahlstedt (2003) 231 LSJS 140.
75 R v Gillard [2006] SASC 46.
76 R v Ali; R v Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871 (28 June 2013).
77 [2017] SASC 182 (8 December 2017).
78 R v Ali; R v Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871 (28 June 2013) at [27].
79 R v Ali; R v Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871 (28 June 2013) at [23]–[24] and [32] (emphasis added).
80 Feili v R [2015] NSWCCA 43.
81 R v Hayles [2017] SASC 182 (8 December 2017).
82 R v Hayles [2017] SASC 182 (8 December 2017) at [4].
83 R v Hayles [2017] SASC 182 (8 December 2017) at [35] and [40].
84 [2006] SASC 46.
85 R v Gillard [2006] SASC 46 at [53].
86 R v Steurer [2009] SADC ACTSC 150 (10 November 2009).
87 R v Steurer [2009] SADC ACTSC 150 (10 November 2009) at [15]–[16].
88 R v Steurer [2009] SADC ACTSC 150 (10 November 2009) at [16].
89 R v Ali; R v Amiri; R v Feili; R v Haidari; R v Parhizkar [2013] NSWSC 871 (28 June 2013).
90 R v Fisher [2011] 210 A Crim R 199 at [53].
91 [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020).
92 R v Dellamarta [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020) at [75]–[76].
93 R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 152 at [42].
94 Tasmania Law Reform Institute, Review of the Defence of Insanity in s 16 of the Criminal Code and Fitness to Plead (Issues Paper No 27, February 2019) Part 4.
95 R v Chanthasaeng [2008] NSWDC 122 at [47].
96 R v Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61 at [21].
97 R v Monaghan [2009] ACTSC 61 at [92].
98 R v Gillard [2006] SASC 46 at [52].
99 R v Dellamarta [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020) at [84].
100 [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020).
101 R v Wahlstedt (2003) 231 LSJS 140.
102 R v Fisher [2011] 210 A Crim R 199 at [61].
103 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021).
104 See for example, Astrid Birgden, ‘The Assessment of Fitness to Stand Trial for Defendants with an Intellectual Disability: A Proposed Assessment Procedure Involving Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers’ (1999) 6(2) Psychiatr Psychol Law 207–214; Warren J Brookbanks, ‘Fitness to Plead and the Intellectually Disabled Offender’ (2009) 1(2) Psychiatr Psychol Law 171–180; Ian Freckelton QC and Patrick Keyzer ‘Fitness to Stand Trial and Disability Discrimination: An International Critique of Australia’ (2017) 24(5) Psychology, Public Policy and Law 770–783.
105 R v MU [2021] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021) at [169].
106 R v Fisher [2011] 210 A Crim R 199 at [66].
107 R v Fisher [2011] 210 A Crim R 199 at [63].
108 R v House [1986] 2 Qd R 415 at 422.
109 R v Muller [2013] ACTSC 144 (22 July 2021) at [24].
110 Finau v The Queen [2021] ACTCA 17 (2 July 2021).
111 R v Dellamarta [2020] VSC 745 (13 November 2020); R v Dunne [2001] WASC 196 (6 August 2002).
112 R v Dunne [2001] WASC 196 (6 August 2002) at [26] (emphasis added).
113 R v Cain [2010] QCA 373 (23 December 2010); R v T (2000) 109 A Crim R 559.
114 109 A Crim R 559.
115 R v T (2000) 109 A Crim R 559 at [27]-[31].
116 R v Chanthasaeng [2008] NSWDC 122 at [48].
117 Egan v JG [2010] ACTSC 53.
118 [2005] NTCCA 14.
119 Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1 at [8].
120 Camurtay v The Queen [2020] VSCA 221 (3 September 2020) at [84].
121 (2000) 109 A Crim R 559.
122 [2009] ACTSC 150 (10 November 2009).
123 R v Steurer [2009] ACTSC 150 (10 November 2009) at [19].
124 R v Stevens [2009] SADC 143 (16 December 2009).
125 Grant A Blake, ‘Evaluating Fitness to Stand Trial in Australia’ (PhD thesis, Swinburne University, 2022).
126 The ECST-R was deemed unsuitable for use in R v Stevens [2009] SADC 143 (16 December 2009) because it is an American measure of Dusky competency. The MacCAT-CA was deemed unsuitable for use in Gibson, Re [2017] QMHC 3 for the same reason.
127 Grant A Blake and James RP Ogloff, ‘The Correlates of Unfitness to Stand Trial in Victoria, Australia’ (2020) 20(1) International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 48–62.
128 R v BF (No 4) [2019] ACTSC 346.