For the reasons which follow, I have decided that the Accused is unfit to stand trial and will not become fit to stand trial within six months.
I am satisfied that the Accused has a mental impairment, as defined by s 9 of the CLMI Act. His traumatic brain injury, diagnosed at Royal Perth Hospital soon after his admission on 16 March 2024, is an 'acquired brain injury', being one of four conditions that constitute a 'mental impairment' as defined in s 9 of the CLMI Act.
I am also satisfied that because of his traumatic brain injury the Accused is unable to properly defend the Drug Charges or the Violence Charges. The effect of the opinion of Dr Moyle is that the Accused is unable to give reliable instructions to his counsel in response to factual allegations by the State concerning the charges against him, or in response to evidence that may be adduced in the course of any trial of those charges.
I accept Dr Moyle's opinion. He has qualifications, experience and expertise in his field, including having been published in peer reviewed journals. He has stated the basis for his opinions. Importantly his opinions are based on verifiable testing of the Accused. Tests of the Accused's working memory and memory, conducted in October 2024 and again in August 2025, placed the Accused in the extremely low or low average categories compared to age matched peers.
It may be assumed that the Accused had supplied some instructions to his counsel before his traumatic brain injury in March 2024; however to properly defend the charges, it would be necessary for the Accused to provide further instructions on material disclosed by the State after March 2024 and to provide instructions on evidence adduced during any trial.
Testing of the Accused's executive functions in October 2024 and August 2025 placed the Accused in the extremely low or very low categories compared to age matched peers. Those results support the opinion of Dr Moyle that it is beyond the cognitive capacity of the Accused to follow any trial, to understand evidence adduced at trial, and to decide whether to give evidence.
Dr Moyle was also of the opinion, which I accept, that there were no support measures available to ameliorate the effects of the Accused's compromised cognitive capacity.
It follows from my conclusion that the Accused is unable to discharge the functions identified in s 26(f), s 26(g), s 26(h) and s 26(i) of the CLMI Act, that the Accused is unfit to stand trial on the Drug Charges and the Violence Charges.
I am also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Accused will not become fit to stand trial within six months. This conclusion is supported by the opinion of Dr Moyle. That opinion was to the effect that given the limited cognitive improvements between October 2024 and August 2025, it is unlikely that any future cognitive improvements of the Accused will be significant.
[2]
As a result of my finding that the Accused is unfit to stand trial and will not become fit within six months, in each of the cases concerning the Drug Charges or the Violence Charges, orders will be made that a special proceeding take place on a date to be fixed.[18]
[3]
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.
[4]
[9]The State of Western Australia v Brooke[2025] WASC 304 [55] (Forrester J).
[14]The State of Western Australia v T - S[2019] WADC 40 [3] (Sleight CJDC).
[10]
[15] State Brief Drug Charges (Ind 1947 of 2025); State Brief Violence Charges (Ind 778 of 2025).
[11]
[18] The court also made orders for a communication partner assessment to be undertaken: 'Communication Partner Program', Government of Western Australia (Web Page, last updated 25 March 2025) .
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Hone
Respondent/Defendant:
The State of Western Australia
Legislation Cited (3)
Law (Mental Impairment) Act 2023
Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act 1996
Procedure Act 2004
Cases Cited (10)
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- RACE [2026] WADC 13 (11 February 2026)