The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and found the appellant unfit to plead under s 311(1)(f) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), holding that the Magistrate erred in rejecting expert psychological evidence of unfitness in favour of courtroom observations of the appellant's childlike interjections and evidence of a driver's licence and certificates. The Court held that where the acknowledged expert in intellectual disability ([name withheld]) assessed the appellant as unfit, and the psychiatrist ([name withheld]) deferred to that expertise in his supplementary report, there was no compelling reason to reject the expert evidence; the Magistrate's reliance on superficial courtroom interactions was insufficient to displace it. The Court also held that the unusual circumstance of the appellant's guardian being the complainant was a significant factor bearing on the appellant's capacity to give instructions, as the guardian had historically been essential in translating, prompting and preparing the appellant for legal consultations.
The full text is available to signed-in members.