R v Boujandy (No. 2) [2022] NSWDC 517
S 22B of the Bail Act does not apply following a special hearing because a verdict under s 59 MHCIFP Act is not a conviction; accordingly, the Court lacks power to order interim detention pending nomination of a limiting term but retains power to vary bail orders.
- Parties
- Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Defendant: Charles Boujandy
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 October 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Post Special Hearing, Pre Penalty Hearing
- Outcome
- bail continued; penalty hearing listed
- Legal Topics
- Bail, Detention, Special Hearing, Limiting Term, Mental Health, Domestic Violence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina (Crown)
Prosecution
Charles Boujandy
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Special Hearing, Pre Penalty Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the Court have power to order interim detention pending nomination of a limiting term under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Provisions Act?
- 2 Does s 22B of the Bail Act apply to a defendant after a special hearing but before penalty hearing?
- 3 Can bail be revoked or varied in these circumstances?
Ratio Decidendi
S 22B of the Bail Act does not apply following a special hearing because a verdict under s 59 MHCIFP Act is not a conviction; accordingly, the Court lacks power to order interim detention pending nomination of a limiting term but retains power to vary bail orders.
Court Disposition
bail continued; penalty hearing listed
Orders
- Matter listed for penalty hearing on 30 November 2022 with an estimate of 2 days.
- Parties directed to serve written submissions on or before 28 November 2022 at 5 pm.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment