R v Boujandy (No. 3) [2022] NSWDC 604

R v Boujandy (No. 3) [2022] NSWDC 604

Because both parties sought an adjournment to obtain further expert medical evidence relevant to whether the s 166 verdicts should be quashed with or without conditions, and because the Court saw no practical detriment or prejudice in that course, the Court acceded to the joint application for adjournment and made timetable and listing directions, while rejecting the defendant's application to vary bail reporting conditions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Special Hearing Consequential Orders / Penalty Hearing Adjournment After Special Hearing
Outcome
Joint application for adjournment granted; directions made for expert evidence and penalty hearing; defendant's application to vary bail reporting conditions rejected.
Legal Topics
['special Hearing' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'section 166 Charges' 'penalty Hearing' 'adjournment' 'expert Medical Evidence' 'bail Reporting Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Procedure' 'evidence and Procedure'] ['special Hearing' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'section 166 Charges' 'penalty Hearing' 'adjournment' 'expert Medical Evidence' 'bail Reporting Conditions']

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 Special Hearing Consequential Orders / Penalty Hearing Adjournment After Special Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should adjourn the penalty hearing to allow the parties to obtain and exchange further expert medical opinion evidence.' 'Whether the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) s 14(1)(c) applied to the 20 charges before the Court pursuant to s 166, or whether the relevant power was under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32.' 'Whether verdicts of offence committed on the s 166 matters would ultimately be quashed with or without conditions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because both parties sought an adjournment to obtain further expert medical evidence relevant to whether the s 166 verdicts should be quashed with or without conditions, and because the Court saw no practical detriment or prejudice in that course, the Court acceded to the joint application for adjournment and made timetable and listing directions, while rejecting the defendant's application to vary bail reporting conditions.

Court Disposition

Joint application for adjournment granted; directions made for expert evidence and penalty hearing; defendant's application to vary bail reporting conditions rejected.

Orders

  • ['Direct the Defendant to serve any further expert medical opinion evidence upon which he would seek to rely on the Crown on or before 1 February 2023.' 'Direct the Crown to serve any further expert medical opinion evidence upon which it would seek to rely on the defendant on or before 15 March 2023.' 'Direct that...