(1) A special verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment is entered for the following offences:

a) Count 1: CC2023/7244 - aggravated robbery, contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT_)._

b) Count 2: SCCAN2024/29 - unauthorised possession or use of a firearm, contrary to s 43(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT).

c) Count 3: CC2023/7245 - drive motor vehicle without consent, contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

(2) A finding of not guilty because of mental impairment is entered for transferred charge CC2023/7247 and the charge is dismissed.

(3) In relation to CC2023/7244, SCCAN2024/29 and CC2023/7245 the accused is to submit to the jurisdiction of the ACAT to allow the ACAT to make a mental health order or a forensic order under the Mental Health Act 2015 (ACT).

I certify that the preceding eighty-five [85] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Justice Taylor.

ANNEXURE A - AGREED DIRECTIONS

Onus and standard of proof

1. The burden of proof of the guilt of the accused is placed squarely on the prosecution. The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until the prosecution persuades me that the accused is guilty of the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that if I am left unable to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case, in relation only to the physical elements of the offence, beyond reasonable doubt, even though I might suspect that the accused committed the offence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt and I must find him not guilty simpliciter.

1. To enter a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment, I must be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that when carrying out the conduct required for the offence, the accused was suffering from a mental impairment that had the effect that -

(a) he did not know the nature and quality of the conduct; or

(b) he did not know that the conduct was wrong; or

(c) he could not control the conduct.

1. A "mental impairment" includes senility, intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage and severe personality disorder.
2. A "mental illness" is an underlying pathological infirmity of the mind, whether of long or short duration and whether permanent or temporary, but does not include a condition (a reactive condition) resulting from the reaction of a healthy mind to extraordinary external stimuli (such as drug or alcohol use).
3. However, a reactive condition may be evidence of a mental illness if it involves some abnormality and is prone to recur.

1. The facts that I find must be based on the evidence. In this case, that includes the evidence included in the Agreed Tender Bundle, which was tendered without objection.
2. In assessing the evidence, I must apply my common sense. I must do so with an open and unbiased mind, hearing the evidence clinically and dispassionately and not letting emotion enter into the decision-making process. The prosecution and the accused are entitled to my verdict free of partiality, prejudice, favour or ill will.

1. I may draw reasonable inferences from the facts that I find are established. I must examine any possible inference to ensure that it is a justifiable inference, and I must not draw an inference from the direct evidence unless it is a rational inference in all of the circumstances.

1. In this case, reports of Associate Professor Carroll and Dr Le were tendered as expert evidence.
2. The value of any expert opinion very much depends on the reliability and accuracy of the material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion. It also depends on the degree to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based, and the skill and experience brought to bear in formulating the opinion given. Experts can differ in the level and degree of their experience, training and study, yet each can still be an expert qualified to give an opinion where that opinion is based on that witness's specialised knowledge.
3. In the present case, the expert evidence was admitted to provide me with information and an opinion on the mental impairment of the accused in relation to the criteria set out in s 28 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). These topics are within each experts' expertise but are likely to be outside the experience and knowledge of the average lay person.
4. The expert evidence is before me as part of all the evidence to assist me in determining whether the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
5. I bear in mind that if, having given the matter careful consideration, I do not accept the evidence of the experts, I do not have to act upon it. This will be particularly so if the facts upon which the opinion is based do not accord with the facts as I find them to be. I am also, to a degree, entitled to take into account my common sense and my own experiences if they are relevant to the issue upon which the expert evidence relates.

1. The accused has not given any evidence in response to the prosecution case. However, as outlined above, the prosecution bears the onus of satisfying me beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the physical elements of the offences charged. There is no obligation on an accused person to give or call evidence in a criminal trial, nor in a hearing under s 321 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The accused is presumed to be innocent until I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence led by the prosecution that he is guilty of the offence charged, including both the physical and fault elements (although noting that a person "cannot rely on a mental impairment to deny voluntariness or the existence of a fault element, but may rely on mental impairment to deny criminal responsibility"). It follows that the accused is entitled to say nothing and make the prosecution prove his guilt to the high standard required. I cannot use the accused's decision not to give evidence in any way at all during the course of my deliberations, nor can I use it as strengthening the prosecution case or in assisting the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. I must not speculate about what might have been said in evidence if the accused had given evidence.

ANNEXURE B - ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCES

Aggravated robbery - contrary to s 310 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

1. The accused appropriates something;
2. The accused intends to appropriate something;
3. The something that is appropriated is 'property';
4. The accused is reckless as to the fact that what is appropriated is property;
5. The property belongs to another person;
6. The accused is reckless as to the fact that the property belongs to another person;
7. The appropriation is dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people;
8. The accused knows the appropriation is dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people;
9. At the time the accused appropriates the property, the accused intends to permanently deprive the person to whom the property belongs of the property;
10. When committing the theft, or immediately before committing the theft, or immediately after committing the theft, the accused uses force on someone else or threatens to use force then and there on someone else;
11. The accused intends to commit theft or escape from the scene when using force or threatening to use force;
12. The accused has an offensive weapon with him at the time of committing the robbery; and
13. The accused intends to have an offensive weapon with him at the time of committing the robbery.

Unauthorised possession or use of a firearm - contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii) Firearms Act 1996 (ACT)

1. The accused possesses or uses 1 or 2 things;
2. The accused intends to possess or use 1 or 2 things;
3. The thing possessed or used is a firearm;
4. The accused is reckless as to whether the thing possessed or used is a firearm;
5. The accused is not authorised by licence or permit to possess or use each of the firearms; and
6. The accused is reckless as to whether he / she is not authorised by licence or permit to possess or use each of the firearms.

Drive motor vehicle without consent - contrary to s 318(2) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)

1. The accused drove a motor vehicle;
2. The accused intended to drive the motor vehicle;
3. The motor vehicle belonged to another person;
4. The accused was reckless as to the fact that the motor vehicle belonged to another person;
5. The driving was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people;
6. The accused knew the driving was dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people;
7. The motor vehicle had been dishonestly taken from the person to whom it belonged without that person's consent; and
8. The accused was reckless as to the fact that the motor vehicle had been dishonestly taken from the person to whom it belonged without that person's consent.

Drive unlicenced - contrary to s 31(1) Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)

1. The defendant drove a motor vehicle;
2. On a road or road related area;
3. The defendant was not the holder of an Australian Driver's licence; and
4. The defendant was not exempted by regulation from holding an Australian Driver's licence.