R v Khan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 663

R v Khan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 663

The psychiatric material from Dr Watts, Dr Adams and Professor Greenberg, together with concerns in the solicitor's affidavit, raised in good faith the question of the accused's fitness to stand trial after arraignment. The threshold for raising the question under s 10(1)(b) is low and does not require the issue of fitness to be determined at that point. Because the question was raised in good faith, s 10 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) required that the jury be discharged and that a separate hearing be arranged to determine the accused's fitness to stand trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial on Indictment for Engaging in a Terrorist Act, With an Alternative Count of Wounding With Intent to Murder / Procedural Ruling After Arraignment and During Trial on Issue of Accused's Fitness to Stand Trial
Outcome
Jury discharged and proceedings listed for further directions with a view to setting a hearing date to determine the accused's fitness to stand trial.
Legal Topics
['fitness to Stand Trial' 'discharge of Jury' 'mental Illness Plea' 'terrorism Offence' 'attempted Murder' 'procedure Where Question of Unfitness Raised After Arraignment']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'mental Health and Forensic Procedure'] ['fitness to Stand Trial' 'discharge of Jury' 'mental Illness Plea' 'terrorism Offence' 'attempted Murder' 'procedure Where Question of Unfitness Raised After Arraignment']

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 Trial on Indictment for Engaging in a Terrorist Act, With an Alternative Count of Wounding With Intent to Murder / Procedural Ruling After Arraignment and During Trial on Issue of Accused's Fitness to Stand Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the question of the accused's unfitness to be tried had been raised after arraignment within the meaning of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)." "Whether the question of the accused's fitness had been raised in good faith." 'Whether s 10 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) required discharge of the jury and a separate hearing to determine fitness to stand trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The psychiatric material from Dr Watts, Dr Adams and Professor Greenberg, together with concerns in the solicitor's affidavit, raised in good faith the question of the accused's fitness to stand trial after arraignment. The threshold for raising the question under s 10(1)(b) is low and does not require the issue of fitness to be determined at that point. Because the question was raised in good faith, s 10 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) required that the jury be discharged and that a separate hearing be arranged to determine the accused's fitness to stand trial.

Court Disposition

Jury discharged and proceedings listed for further directions with a view to setting a hearing date to determine the accused's fitness to stand trial.

Orders

  • ['The jury is discharged.' "The proceedings are listed before me for further directions at 9.15am on Monday, 9 July 2018 with a view to setting a hearing date to determine the issue of the accused's fitness to stand trial."]