State v Yauling [2009] PGNC 285; N5513 (12 November 2009)

N5513

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

CR 1480 OF 2005

THE STATE

V

SAMSON YAULING

Wewak: Cannings J
2009: 10, 12 November

CRIMINAL LAW – practice and procedure – Criminal Code, Section 569 (want of understanding of accused person) – whether accused capable of understanding the proceedings – fitness to plead.

An accused person, in remand on a charge of wilful murder, exhibited signs of mental illness. There was uncertainty as to whether he was capable of understanding the proceedings. An inquiry was conducted under Section 569 of the Criminal Code into his fitness to plead.

Held:

(1) If the Court is uncertain whether an accused is capable of understanding the proceedings at the trial, so as to be able to make a proper defence, the Court is obliged to enquire into the matter in order to discover whether or not he is capable.

(2) Here, the Court enquired into the matter and concluded that the accused was not capable of understanding the proceedings.

Case cited

The following case is cited in the judgment:

In The Matter of four Remandees allegedly of unsound mind of Boram Correctional Institution East Sepik Province (2006) N3796

INQUIRY

This was an inquiry under Section 569(1) of the Criminal Code into the question of whether an accused person was capable of understanding the proceedings.

Counsel

D Mark, for the State
A Hombunaka, for the accused

12th November, 2009

1. CANNINGS J: This is an inquiry into whether the accused Samson Yauling is capable of understanding the court proceedings in which he has been committed for trial on a charge of wilful murder. The inquiry is being conducted under Section 569(1) of the Criminal Code, which states:

If, where the accused person is called on to plead to the indictment it appears to be uncertain whether he is capable of understanding the proceedings at the trial so as to be able to make a proper defence, then before a plea is entered to the indictment the court shall enquire into the matter in order to discover whether or not he is capable.

2. The accused is alleged to have killed his father, John Yauling, at the family home at Balam Village, West Coast on 8 April 2005. He was arrested and placed in Police custody, later Correctional Service custody soon after the incident. He has been in custody continuously for a period of 4 years, 7 months. The District Court on 13 July 2005 committed him for trial.

3. The reason this inquiry has been conducted is that the accused has been exhibiting signs of mental illness while in custody and during his court appearances. In May 2006, I ordered that he be subject to psychiatric assessment (In The Matter of four Remandees allegedly of unsound mind of Boram Correctional Institution East Sepik Province (2006) N3796).

EVIDENCE

4. Dr Priscilla Nad, Acting Chief Psychiatrist for the Momase Region, gave evidence concerning Samson's capacity to understand the proceedings, ie his fitness to plead. Dr Nad said that she is familiar with Samson and his condition and she has assessed his condition and obtained collateral information from his cellmates. Her diagnosis is that he is suffering from schizophrenia, a mental illness marked by a breakdown between thoughts, feelings and actions, often accompanied by delusions and retreat from social activity. She has treated him with anti-psychotic medication and there has been some improvement but he still has little or no recollection of past events and in particular the reason that he is in custody and he shows no remorse for what has happened in the past. Dr Nad's opinion is that he is not able to fully understand the court proceedings and is not fit to plead to the charge.

5. During the course of the hearing I asked the accused a number of simple questions about his case and he did not respond at all.

FINDINGS

6. I see no reason not to accept Dr Nad's opinion. Therefore I conclude that Samson Yauling is not capable of understanding the proceedings, the reason being that he is of unsound mind. I make these findings under Section 569(3)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, which states:

If the court finds that the accused person is not capable of understanding the proceedings—

(a) the court shall say whether he is so found by it for the reason that he is of unsound mind or for some other specified reason; and

(b) the finding shall be recorded; and

(c) the court may order the accused person—

(i) to be discharged; or

(ii) be kept in custody in such place and in such manner as the court thinks proper until he can be dealt with according to law.

7. That means that I now have a discretion to exercise under Section 569(3)(c). I can order that Samson be discharged (ie released from custody) or that he be kept in custody, perhaps in a mental institution. I do not have enough information before me to decide right now what to do. So I will request that information and order that there be a further hearing to receive that information and hear submissions from Samson's lawyer and the State and anyone else who has a legitimate interest in this matter.

ORDER

(1) The Court finds, for the purposes of Section 569(3)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code, that the accused is not capable of understanding the proceedings, the reason being that he is of unsound mind.

(2) The matter is adjourned for further hearing on 18 November 2009 which the following officer-holders shall attend for the purposes of providing information and their opinion to the Court on whether the accused should be discharged from custody (and if so, on what terms) or kept in custody (and if so at what place and in what manner):

• (a) Acting Chief Psychiatrist, Momase Region;
• (b) Provincial Welfare Officer;
• (c) OIC, Community Based Corrections, Wewak;
• (d) Police Investigating Officer.
  

(3) Any other person with a legitimate interest in this matter may attend the hearing and seek the leave of the Court to express an opinion on the matter.

(4) In the meantime the accused shall continue to be detained in custody at Boram Correctional Institution.

Ordered accordingly.
________________________________________________________

Public Prosecutor: Lawyer for the State
Public Solicitor: Lawyer for the Accused