R v Arbolino [2020] NSWDC 247

R v Arbolino [2020] NSWDC 247

On the expert evidence, the accused suffered a neurocognitive disorder resulting in cognitive and behavioural impairment. Although he understood the charges, pleas and the general nature of proceedings, he did not understand his right to challenge, could not understand the substantial effect of evidence, could not follow proceedings in a general sense, and could not make his defence, answer the charges, give instructions to counsel or make his version known. Applying the Presser criteria, the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he was unfit to be tried.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fitness Inquiry / Fitness Inquiry After Arraignment and Vacated Trial Dates
Outcome
The accused was found unfit to be tried; the matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the proceedings were adjourned for mention.
Legal Topics
['fitness to Be Tried' 'presser Criteria' 'neurocognitive Disorder' 'traumatic Brain Injury' 'sexual Offences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'mental Health Law'] ['fitness to Be Tried' 'presser Criteria' 'neurocognitive Disorder' 'traumatic Brain Injury' 'sexual Offences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fitness Inquiry / Fitness Inquiry After Arraignment and Vacated Trial Dates

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused was unfit to be tried on the balance of probabilities under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, 1990.' 'Whether the accused satisfied the minimum standards in the Presser criteria, including understanding the charges and pleas, exercising the right to challenge, following proceedings, understanding evidence, and instructing counsel or making a defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

On the expert evidence, the accused suffered a neurocognitive disorder resulting in cognitive and behavioural impairment. Although he understood the charges, pleas and the general nature of proceedings, he did not understand his right to challenge, could not understand the substantial effect of evidence, could not follow proceedings in a general sense, and could not make his defence, answer the charges, give instructions to counsel or make his version known. Applying the Presser criteria, the Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that he was unfit to be tried.

Court Disposition

The accused was found unfit to be tried; the matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the proceedings were adjourned for mention.

Orders

  • ['I find that the accused David John Arbolino is unfit to be tried for the offences.' 'In accordance with section 14(a), Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, I refer the matter to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.' 'I direct that the Registry provide a copy of the reports of Dr Adams, Professor Greenberg and Ms...