R v Bouggas [2025] NSWSC 122

R v Bouggas [2025] NSWSC 122

The accused, Christopher Bouggas, committed the acts which caused the deaths of Steven Glen Finlay and Mitchell Watson. However, at the time of carrying out these acts, he suffered from a schizoaffective disorder constituting a mental health impairment. As a result, he did not know that his acts were wrong, as required by s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Thus, the accused is not criminally responsible, and the appropriate verdict is act proven but not criminally responsible for each count.

Parties
Crown: Rex; Accused: Christopher Bouggas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Special Hearing (verdict and Orders)
Outcome
special verdict – act proven but not criminally responsible (both counts)
Legal Topics
Murder, Mental Health Impairment, Criminal Responsibility, Hearsay Evidence, Tendency and Coincidence Evidence, Forensic Evidence
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Evidence Murder Mental Health Impairment Criminal Responsibility Hearsay Evidence Tendency and Coincidence Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Crown

Christopher Bouggas

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Special Hearing (verdict and Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed the acts causing death of the deceased
  2. 2 Whether the accused is not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment

Ratio Decidendi

The accused, Christopher Bouggas, committed the acts which caused the deaths of Steven Glen Finlay and Mitchell Watson. However, at the time of carrying out these acts, he suffered from a schizoaffective disorder constituting a mental health impairment. As a result, he did not know that his acts were wrong, as required by s 28 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). Thus, the accused is not criminally responsible, and the appropriate verdict is act proven but not criminally responsible for each count.

Court Disposition

special verdict – act proven but not criminally responsible (both counts)

Orders

  • In respect of count 1, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.
  • In respect of count 2, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.