NSW Police v Everingham [2016] NSWLC 10

NSW Police v Everingham [2016] NSWLC 10

The application was refused because, even assuming a relevant mental condition, the seriousness of the offending, including escalating unprovoked violence, threats, the throwing of a glass, actual bodily harm and the public interest in punishment for community protection, meant it was not more appropriate to deal with the defendant under s 32 than according to law. In addition, the psychological material did not establish the s 32(1)(a)(iii) precondition that the defendant suffered from a condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility, did not classify the Major Depressive Disorder as a mental illness, and offered only a generic, non-specific treatment plan.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings: Common Assault, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Intimidation / Application Under S 32 Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 1990 for Mental Health Diversion
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['mental Health Diversion' 'section 32 Application' 'assault' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'intimidation' 'objective Seriousness' 'treatment Plan']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health Law' 'sentencing'] ['mental Health Diversion' 'section 32 Application' 'assault' 'assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'intimidation' 'objective Seriousness' 'treatment Plan']

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 Proceedings: Common Assault, Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and Intimidation / Application Under S 32 Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 1990 for Mental Health Diversion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant was eligible to be dealt with under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.' 'Whether, having regard to the facts alleged and other relevant evidence, it would be more appropriate to deal with the defendant under s 32 than otherwise in accordance with law.' 'Whether there was evidence that the defendant suffered from a condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility.' 'Whether the treatment plan was sufficiently clear and effective.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because, even assuming a relevant mental condition, the seriousness of the offending, including escalating unprovoked violence, threats, the throwing of a glass, actual bodily harm and the public interest in punishment for community protection, meant it was not more appropriate to deal with the defendant under s 32 than according to law. In addition, the psychological material did not establish the s 32(1)(a)(iii) precondition that the defendant suffered from a condition for which treatment is available in a mental health facility, did not classify the Major Depressive Disorder as a mental illness, and offered only a generic, non-specific treatment plan.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application is refused.']