R v PYNE [2026] SADC 56

R: Counsel: MS T NELSON - Solicitor: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (SA) Defendant: ANDREW JAMES PYNE Counsel: MS S GRIMWADE - Solicitor: GRIMWADE LEGAL Hearing Date/s: 14/08/2025, 02/10/2025, 06/02/2026, 20/03/2026, 31/03/2026 File No/s: DCCRM-24-049968 B DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (Criminal) DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. R v PYNE [2026] SADC 56 Judgment of his Honour Judge Soulio (ex tempore) 31 March 2026 CRIMINAL LAW Defendant charged with robbery - investigation into mental competence to commit offence - decided that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence defendant was suffering a mental impairment - decided that the objective elements were established beyond reasonable doubt - defendant declared to be mentally incompetent to commit the offence and declared liable to supervision - limiting term of two years, seven months and 18 days after credit for time in custody - supervision order made releasing the defendant on licence on conditions decided by the Court and specified in the licence. Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 137, Part 8A, referred to. R v Place [2015] SASCFC 163, considered. -- 1 of 12 -- -- 2 of 12 -- R v PYNE [2026] SADC 56 Introduction 1 The defendant, Andrew James Pyne, was charged with the offence of robbery contrary to s 137 Criminal Law Consolidation Act said to have been committed on 8 November 2024. Circumstances of the offending 2 The circumstances of the alleged offending, in brief, were that the defendant attended at the Adelaide convenience store in Rundle Street. One Mr Hakeem was working in the store. He observed the defendant murmuring angrily to himself. The defendant then proceeded to purchase a bottle of soft drink. Mr Hakeem continued stocking the fridge. 3 The defendant then came further into the store and approached Mr Hakeem and yelled at him 'I'm going to slit your throat, you've stolen my money'. Mr Hakeem endeavoured to explain to the defendant that he had not stolen any money. The defendant continued to yell at Mr Hakeem. He then yelled at Mr Hakeem to get on the floor. Mr Hakeem was terrified and complied, getting down on his hands and knees. 4 The defendant asked Mr Hakeem where the money was and was told that Mr Hakeem did not have his money. The defendant then told Mr Hakeem that he was missing $350 and needed to take the money out of the till or he would kill Mr Hakeem. 5 Mr Hakeem walked behind the counter. He was told to keep his hands in the air. He opened the till, took out seven $50 notes, and held them out to the defendant. Mr Hakeem attempted to call emergency services, but the defendant yelled at him and told him not to. The defendant then walked around to the counter where Mr Hakeem was located, snatched the money out of Mr Hakeem's hand, and left the store. 6 The defendant was arrested at Hungry Jack’s on Hindley Street the following morning. He made admissions to police. The Hearings 7 The matter has taken a somewhat unusual course. In December 2024 the defendant entered a plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court and was committed for sentence. He first appeared in this court on 31 January 2025. The allocutus was read. It then emerged that counsel for the defendant, in the course of obtaining a psychological report for the purposes of submissions in mitigation, ascertained that the defendant possibly had a Part 8A defence. 8 On returning to court on 14 August 2025, counsel for both parties reached common ground that the plea of guilty should be struck out. The Director of Public -- 3 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 2 Prosecutions had not initially conceded that a Part 8A defence was open, but rather that the plea should be struck out on the basis that the issue of whether such a defence was available should then be explored. Mental Incompetence 9 The assessing forensic psychiatrist, Dr Condon, had provided a detailed report by that stage, in which she expressed the opinion that the defendant met the criteria for a mental impairment defence in relation to the robbery. 10 On the basis of the evidence available it became apparent that indeed the defendant did have open to him a defence under Part 8A. 11 On 2 October 2025, having heard from counsel and proceeding by consent, I dealt first with the trial of the objective elements of the charge of committing theft using force contrary to s 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act. I did so pursuant to s 269E(2). 12 I had regard to declarations accepted into evidence by consent, proceeding pursuant to s 269GA(1). They constituted the declarations of Mr Abdul Hakeem dated 8 November 2024, Mr Hussain dated 8 December 2024, Ms Alenka dated 3 December 2024 and 30 January 2025, Mr Conlin dated 14 November 2024, Ms Smith dated 18 November 2024 and 12 December 2024, Mr Franklin dated 20 November 2024, Ms Friend dated 18 November 2024, and Mr McPhee dated 10 November 2024. 13 Having considered those declarations, and having noted the proper concession by counsel for the defendant as to the objective elements of the offence, I found that the objective elements of the offence were made out beyond reasonable doubt. 14 I then proceeded to a trial on the question of mental competence. I kept in mind that the defendant bore the onus of displacing the presumption of competence to commit the offence, pursuant to s 269D of the Act. 15 I took into account the expression of opinion in the reports of Dr Condon dated 12 April 2025 and 19 September 2025. She had reported that the defendant believed his money was being spirited away, and due to the loss of insight and ongoing persecutory delusions, was unable to reason as to the wrongfulness of his conduct. 16 Dr Condon said that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of robbery because at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the offence, he was suffering from mental impairment due to having a relapse of schizophrenia after being non-compliant with medication. She said that as a consequence of the mental impairment, due to symptoms of psychosis, he did not know the nature and quality of his conduct because he did not understand that he was committing theft, believing he was only taking what was his. -- 4 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 3 17 That view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that the defendant sought only the sum of $350, when it can be inferred that there was a greater amount than that in the till. 18 The Director of Public Prosecutions made the proper concession that Dr Condon's evidence was sufficient to displace the presumption of mental incompetence to commit the offence, and made the submission that it was proper that the court record a finding, pursuant to s 269GV(5)(b), that the conduct was proved, but the defendant was not criminally responsible by reason of mental incompetence. 19 Accordingly, the parties having agreed to dispense with an investigation into the defendant's mental competence, and based on the reports I have referred to, I declared that the defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offence of commit theft using force. I found the conduct proved, but found that the defendant was not criminally responsible, and declared him liable to supervision pursuant to s 269GB(3)(a) of the Act. Division 4 Disposition 20 What follows from such a declaration is that I am required to determine the question of the disposition of the person pursuant to s 269O of the Act. I have the power to release the defendant unconditionally, or make a supervision order either committing the defendant to detention, or releasing the defendant on conditions of licence. 21 Before considering the final disposition it is necessary for me to fix a limiting term. In doing so I am required to fix a term which would be the equivalent of the sentence I would have imposed for the offence, but without allowing any statutory sentencing discount, and without taking into account the factors which lead to the conclusion that the defendant was not guilty by reason of lack of mental competence. 22 I have regard to his personal circumstances, as I would in a sentencing exercise. 23 The defendant is now 52 years of age. He has a history of criminal offending dating back to his youth, with offences commencing at the age of 16 when he was dealt with in the Children's Court on charges of disorderly behaviour, common assault, illegal use of motor vehicles, resist police, assault police, larceny, carrying an offensive weapon, escaping lawful custody, larceny, forgery, building break and felony, further counts of common assault, drink driving, unlawful possession, and being unlawfully on premises. 24 Moving to his adult offending, which it appears continued without respite from the age of 18 years, the defendant was dealt with on a charge of unlawful possession for which he was sentenced to eight months imprisonment in 1992, and thereafter dealt with on charges of being unlawfully on premises, carrying an -- 5 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 4 offensive weapon, producing cannabis, and possessing cannabis. In 1995 he was dealt with on an offence of building break and felony, and building break with intent to commit felony, and sentenced to one year and three months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months, which sentence was suspended. 25 Thereafter he was dealt with for breaching the associated bond, and was required to serve the sentence of imprisonment, together with a further one year imprisonment for driving a motor vehicle without consent. He was further dealt with, over the ensuing years, on charges of larceny, possession of cannabis, driving disqualified, and possessing amphetamines. Then in 2001 he was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year, on multiple counts of receiving, unlawful possession, providing false document to a second-hand dealer, property damage, fraud, and larceny. 26 There followed a period of some two years without offending before the defendant was again dealt with on charges of larceny, disorderly behaviour, and common assault. 27 In 2010 he was sentenced to one year and 11 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and two months, which sentence was suspended, on charges of aggravated serious criminal trespass in a non-residential building, theft, aggravated assault, and attempted property damage. He breached the associated bond, and the suspension was revoked, and the sentence was required to be served, together with a total of nine months further imprisonment on charges of theft and aggravated assault. 28 In 2017 he was dealt with in Western Australia on a charge of failing to obey an order given by an officer, and upon returning to South Australia in 2018 was sentenced to five months imprisonment for aggravated trespass in a residence, aggravated assault, theft, and being unlawfully on premises. 29 In 2019 he was convicted of possessing a controlled drug, which I apprehend to have been methylamphetamine, and in 2020 he breached the bond associated with the sentence of five months imprisonment and was required to serve that sentence, together with further sentences amounting to something of the order of three months in total on numerous bail breaches, counts of theft, common assault, and aggravated assault, as well as providing false information on a bail application for which he was discharged without a penalty. 30 He travelled to Queensland and in 2022 was fined for unauthorised dealing with shop goods, and then made his way to New South Wales where he was imprisoned for common assault, entering enclosed land without lawful excuse, and stalking or intimidating intending fear or physical harm. The total sentence appears to have been one year imprisonment with a three month non-parole period. 31 The defendant then returned to New South Wales and was dealt with on charges of behaving in an offensive manner in a school or public place, and stalking or intimidating intending to cause fear or physical harm, and using -- 6 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 5 offensive language. He was sentenced in all to one year and three months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months. Later in 2023, in New South Wales, he was dealt with on charges of possessing prohibited drugs, and shoplifting. 32 The travel between New South Wales and Queensland continued, and in 2024, in Queensland, the defendant was dealt with on four offences of committing a public nuisance, possessing dangerous drugs and equipment to use drugs, stealing, committing a public nuisance on licensed premises, unauthorised dealing with shop goods, contravening a police banning notice, failing to appear in court for an undertaking, and possessing property suspected of having been used in connection with the commission of a drug offence. Other relatively minor offences were committed in New South Wales and Queensland in 2024. 33 In 2024 the defendant was also dealt with in South Australia on a series of offences dating from 2021 to 2024, including bail breaches, possessing a prescription drug, and possessing what I anticipate to have been methylamphetamine. 34 Those matters are relevant to the sentence that would have been imposed, in the sense that while the defendant would not be again punished for his prior offending, he would not be entitled to the leniency that might be extended to someone who had not so offended. 35 I also take into account the defendant's personal history. He was born in Adelaide and put up for adoption by his parents when he was an infant. He has a younger sister from who he is estranged. He spoke highly of her skill as a musician. 36 He described to Dr Condon a happy childhood. He accepted his parents as his own. He had a close bond with his parents, particularly with his mother, who was supportive throughout his life. She passed away in 2023, causing what appears to have been a significant grief reaction. 37 The defendant was expelled from school during year 9. He experienced significant learning difficulties at school and was apparently diagnosed with dyslexia. He attended another school following his expulsion, but had a disjointed and dysfunctional education it seems, and left school at the end of year 10. He has never been employed. He has not had any meaningful relationships. Fixing the Limiting Term 38 I bear in mind in sentencing that the maximum penalty for the offence is 15 years imprisonment. I bear in mind what fell from the Court of Appeal in R v Place,1 regarding the aggravated version of the offence and the reference to a range of six to eight years imprisonment for such offending. I take into account the lesser offence, but also the history I have referred to. I would have imposed a sentence 1 R v Place [2015] SASCFC 163. -- 7 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 6 of imprisonment for four years, and accordingly that becomes the limiting term, as I have said, without discount. 39 It is common ground that the defendant has been in custody for an extended period, and leaving aside a period of eight days during which he served a sentence for disorderly behaviour, he is entitled to credit for a period of one year, four months and 12 days. That makes the limiting term two years, seven months and 18 days. Disposition 40 I turn then to the final disposition. In considering the disposition of the matter, I have had regard to the submissions of counsel and to the expert reports, including the initial reports upon which the issue of fitness was raised, namely the reports of Dr Condon of 27 April 2025 and 19 September 2025, together with her updated report pursuant to s 269T of 16 January 2026; the report prepared by Ms D'Alessandro, being the victim and next-of-kin report dated 3 February 2026; and the s 269 T & Q reports of Dr Williams, psychiatrist, prepared on 4 March 2026 and 25 March 2026. 41 I note that Mr Hakeem described the impact of the offending upon him. He did not seek to otherwise elaborate upon the offending, but requested a licence condition that the defendant not enter the Adelaide convenience store at 252 Rundle Street Adelaide. That can only be described as a reasonable request. There were no next of kin identified by the defendant for the purpose of that report. 42 Dr Williams obtained a detailed history as to the personal circumstances and medical background of the defendant. She found that the defendant had an established diagnosis of schizophrenia. She described that as a chronic psychiatric condition which involves symptoms of disorganisation, perceptual disturbances, and delusional beliefs. She noted that the defendant had had multiple previous admissions to hospital, often in the context of substance abuse and non-adherence to medication requirements. 43 Dr Williams said that when unwell, the defendant tended to present with disorganised behaviour, auditory hallucinations, and grandiose and persecutory delusions. She also found that the defendant had a substance use disorder, having abused opioids, amphetamines, and cannabis, which led to negative impacts on his mental health and physical health. 44 I pause to observe that Dr Condon had, in the context of assessing the issue of mental competence, made the finding that whilst the onset of paranoid and persecutory delusions may have included a contribution from substance abuse, the principal cause was the well-entrenched underlying schizophrenia, which did not resolve after illicit drug use had ceased while the defendant was in prison but not medicated. -- 8 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 7 45 Dr Williams said that at the time of her assessment, the defendant appeared stable in his mental state. He had acknowledged the negative impact of substance abuse on his mental health and expressed a motivation to address this, and to stay well upon release from custody. Indeed, his counsel relayed to me this morning, her client's stated commitment to comply with his medication regimen, to avoid illicit substances, and to take the benefit of such treatment as may be provided to him. 46 Dr Williams noted that the defendant had been accepted for placement at the Modbury Mental Health Rehabilitation Unit, described as a new unit located at the Modbury Hospital with 24 beds available. It is an in-patient unit where people are supported in their recovery and rehabilitation goals. The unit is staffed by psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, occupational therapists, social workers, substance use workers, and lived experienced workers, amongst others. She said that being released to that unit would assist the defendant with transition back to the community, to build independent living skills, and to source long-term accommodation and support. 47 Dr Williams expressed the view that the defendant required a Community Treatment Order to facilitate the ongoing appropriate use of prescribed medication, given his history of non-compliance while in the community. There is currently a Community Treatment Order operative until 16 December 2026. She noted that the defendant would have ongoing care through a local community mental health team when living in the community, and would have oversight by the Forensic Community Mental Health team while under licence conditions. 48 Dr Williams noted the defendant was now a participant in the NDIS scheme and there was planning underway to connect him with an appropriate provider. She said the defendant currently presented as stable in his mental state without overt psychotic symptoms, and does not require an acute admission to hospital in an acute in-patient unit. She recommended that the defendant be managed in the community, rather than committed to detention. 49 Dr Williams recommended licence conditions, including prohibiting illicit substance use as that may exacerbate or precipitate an episode of illness and increase the risk of offending behaviour. She recommended supervision by a community corrections officer and regular drug testing. She recommended the defendant engage with Drug & Alcohol Services South Australia for opioid replacement, and engage with Narcotics Anonymous which had been identified as assisting him in avoiding substance abuse. She also recommended conditions ensuring the defendant's regular attendance at medical appointments and compliance with prescribed medication. 50 Dr Williams said that implementing the outlined supports and treatment would mean that the defendant continued to receive psychiatric treatment, that his mental state would be monitored, and that he would be supported psycho-socially, thereby making it more likely that his mental health would remain stable and -- 9 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 8 reduce the risk of further offending. I take into account her supplementary report to similar effect. 51 Having discussed the matter with counsel, and noting that there is no objection by the Director of Public Prosecution to the defendant's release on licence, and taking into account all of the materials to which I have referred, I consider it appropriate that the defendant be released on licence within the strict terms of the draft orders prepared jointly by counsel, which I endorse. Those orders will be annexed to these reasons. -- 10 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 9 Date of Order: 31 March 2026 This order is in relation to the Defendant Andrew James PYNE The Court: 1. orders under section 269F A(5) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935, with the agreement of the Prosecution and Defence, and having regard to the contents of reports in relation to the following counts on the Information dated 11 November 2024, that an investigation into the Defendant’s mental competence to commit the offences is dispensed with and a finding that the Defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offences is recorded: a. Count 1 8 November 2024 Commit Theft Using Force (basic offence) (Count 1 DCCRM-24-049968) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. 2. is satisfied that the objective elements of the above offence have been established beyond reasonable doubt and a finding that the objective elements of the above offence are established is recorded. 3. orders that the defendant be released upon licence upon the conditions set out below, with the conditions to apply during the limiting term pursuant to s 269)(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. 4. fixes a limiting term of 2 years, 7 months and 18 days commencing from 31 March 2026 Conditions of Licence Supervision 1 The Defendant be supervised by a Department for Correctional Services Community Corrections Officer ('the Supervising Officer') nominated by the Parole Board and the Defendant must obey their reasonable directions about non-medical matters. 2. The Defendant be under the care of the Clinical Director ('the Director') of the South Australian Forensic Mental Health Service ('the Service') or a consultant psychiatrist nominated by the Director ('the nominee'), and obey their reasonable directions about medical and psychiatric treatment and medication; and further that the Defendant be psychiatrically reviewed on a regular basis as directed by the Director or the nominee. 3 If the Director or nominee thinks it appropriate, management of the treatment and monitoring of the Defendant's mental health can be transferred to a local Community Mental Health Team, who shall case manage them in conjunction with the NDIS funded service provider and they must obey their reasonable directions about the treatment and monitoring of their mental health. Residence (place of living) 4 The Defendant must live at Modbury Mental Health Rehabilitation Unit, Smart Road, Modbury and must not change residence without prior approval from the Supervising Officer. Programs 5 The Defendant's case be managed by the Forensic Community Mental Health Team and the Defendant must obey the reasonable directions of that team or any person authorised by that team to give such directions, particularly for going to appointments nominated by that team or the authorised person. -- 11 of 12 -- [2026] SADC 56 10 6 The Defendant must obey the reasonable directions of the Supervising Officer with respect to: a. counselling; b. psychological treatment; c. going to rehabilitation assessments; d. vocational or occupational programs; e. drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. 7. The Defendant must obey in every respect any treatment plan prepared or directed by the Director or the nominee. 8. The Defendant must continue to receive their medication current at the date of this Order. No alteration or reduction of that medication is allowed without the prior approval of the Director or the nominee. 9 The Defendant must submit to random blood screening at the direction of the Director or the nominee, to ensure that medication is taken as prescribed. Drug and alcohol 10 The Defendant must not use, possess (have), or consume: a. alcohol b. any drug, including any narcotic or psychotropic drug, that is not prescribed by a medical doctor registered in South Australia or legally available in another way, and then only at the prescribed or recommended dosage and the Defendant must have any tests that are needed to check if they are obeying these orders as directed by the Supervising Officer. The Defendant must sign all needed forms obey all of the testing procedures. Firearms 11 The Defendant is prohibited from possessing a firearm (gun of any sort), ammunition (both within the meaning of the Firearms Act 2015) or any part of a firearm. 12 The Defendant must submit to such tests (including testing without notice) for gunshot residue as may be reasonably required by the Supervising Officer or a member of South Australian Police. 13 The Defendant must hand in any firearm, ammunition or any part of a firearm owned or possessed by them as soon as possible at a Police Station. Other conditions 14 The Defendant must not enter the Adelaide Convenience Store located at 252 Rundle Street, Adelaide. 15 The Defendant must not leave or attempt to leave South Australia for any reason without obtaining the written approval of the Supervising Officer at least seven (7) days prior to travel. -- 12 of 12 --