Sentence again delayed for sex offender

Press, 12 July 1985, Page 7

Sentence again delayed for sex offender

Because he was “troubled” about the form of sentence to impose on Wayne Michael . Charnley, aged 21, unemployed, on five charges involving indecencies with girls aged five, seven, and nine years, Mr Justice Holland in the High Court yesterday further remanded him to August 1 to enable full psychiatric assessment to be made at Sunnyside Hospital. The accused had been committed from the District Court for sentence on the five sex offences, which occurred between March 1 and April 8, and on 17 charges of false pretence by which he obtained goods and services to the value of $lOB3. v The accused had appeared for sentence last month when his Honour remanded him until yesterday, intending the remand to have been at Sunnyside Hospital, for assessment. His Honour learned yesterday that the accused had been in Addington Prison for the remand period, because Sunnyside Hospital did not have the facilities to receive him, and that a psychiatric report was prepared on him at the prison. Mr Justice Holland yesterday traversed the matter of the psychiatric difficul-

ties and said he was troubled about the appropriate sentence for the accused.

He said a report by a private psychiatrist said that the accused had personality abnormalities coupled with a lack of intellectual capacity which would make it very difficult for him to cope with existence in society. This specialist, however, concluded that the accused was not committable under the Mental Health Act. His Honour said that a report from a psychiatrist at Sunnyside Hospital said that a prognosis on the accused’s future could not be determined accurately without full psychological assessment. This apparently could not be given until the accused was an in-patient at the hospital. This psychiatrist also did not say the accused was committable under provisions of the Mental Health Act. His Honour remanded the accused to Sunnyside Hospital until August 1. He said the remand was so that he (his Honour) could receive medical advice as to whether the facilities available under another section of the Criminal Justice Act should be imposed on the accused “at least in the

interests of the public if not also in the hope of the accused’s reformation, counselling, and treatment.” His Honour said he was quite satisfied that sending the accused to prison for a long term would be unlikely to serve any useful purpose for him. Equally, however, he was satisfied that on the present information before him he could not release the accused into the community in case similar offences occurred. His Honour said that if the medical information sought showed that no two doctors could certify that the accused should be detained on the grounds indicated, it would be his sad duty to impose a substantial term of imprisonment.

Without some indication from the medical profession that some course of treatment or counselling would assist the accused, he could not be satisfied that the accused’s conduct would not be repeated.

His Honour said in directing the remand to Sunnyside Hospital that he was satisfied the psychiatric report and examination which he required could not practicably be obtained in a penal institution, in which the accused had been held since the last remand.