R v Boujandy (No. 5) [2023] NSWDC 316

R v Boujandy (No. 5) [2023] NSWDC 316

The court found that for all proved offences, sentences of imprisonment (limiting terms) are appropriate given the gravity and ongoing psychological and physical abuse, with consideration of the defendant’s mental illness reducing moral culpability for certain counts where relevant. The defendant’s psychiatric impairment entitles him to individual sentencing mitigation, but does not entitle him to non-custodial orders given the persistent risk and seriousness. The offences proved are addressed with limiting terms for each count, and placement recommendations for mental health management are made.

Parties
Prosecution: Rex (Crown); Defendant: Charles Boujandy
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing After Special Hearing, Limiting Term Determination
Outcome
Sentences by way of limiting terms imposed for all proved offences; certain charges dismissed under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act; orders made for placement, notification, and recommendations to Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Limiting Term, Domestic Violence, Firearm Offences, Mental Health Contribution to Sentencing, Objective Seriousness, Moral Culpability
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Sentencing Limiting Term Domestic Violence Firearm Offences Mental Health Contribution to Sentencing Objective Seriousness +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 31
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex (Crown)

Prosecution

Charles Boujandy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing After Special Hearing, Limiting Term Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate sentence (limiting term) for offences proved against the defendant given his mental health?
  2. 2 To what extent does the defendant's mental illness reduce his moral culpability and objective seriousness for each offence?
  3. 3 Should certain offences be dismissed pursuant to the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act due to mental health impairment?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that for all proved offences, sentences of imprisonment (limiting terms) are appropriate given the gravity and ongoing psychological and physical abuse, with consideration of the defendant’s mental illness reducing moral culpability for certain counts where relevant. The defendant’s psychiatric impairment entitles him to individual sentencing mitigation, but does not entitle him to non-custodial orders given the persistent risk and seriousness. The offences proved are addressed with limiting terms for each count, and placement recommendations for mental health management are made.

Court Disposition

Sentences by way of limiting terms imposed for all proved offences; certain charges dismissed under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act; orders made for placement, notification, and recommendations to Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Orders

  • Limiting terms nominated for 25 counts with specific commencement and termination dates (see Orders section of judgment).
  • Charges relating to s 166 matters before the court are dismissed under s 32 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW).