Haddad v R (No 2) [2020] NSWCCA 44

Haddad v R (No 2) [2020] NSWCCA 44

The trial judge did not err in finding that the question of Mr Haddad's unfitness to be tried had not been raised in good faith. It was open to the trial judge, having regard to the overall context of the proceedings, his own observations of Mr Haddad, and Mr Haddad's participation in earlier applications, to conclude that Mr Haddad was pretending that he was unable to conduct his trial and that Dr Allnutt's opinion was based on a false emotional state and presentation. The report therefore had little or no weight and did not raise a real and substantial concern as to unfitness. Because it did not appear that the question of unfitness was raised in good faith, the prohibition in s 10(2)...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Order Refusing to Vacate the Trial Date to Permit an Inquiry Into Unfitness to Be Tried
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['fitness to Be Tried' 'fitness Inquiry' 'good Faith Under S 10(2) of the Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (nsw)' 'self Represented Accused' 'leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)']
['criminal Procedure' 'mental Health and Forensic Procedure'] ['fitness to Be Tried' 'fitness Inquiry' 'good Faith Under S 10(2) of the Mental Health (forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (nsw)' 'self Represented Accused' 'leave to Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw)']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Under S 5 F of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (nsw) / Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Order Refusing to Vacate the Trial Date to Permit an Inquiry Into Unfitness to Be Tried

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge erred in finding that the question of Mr Haddad's unfitness to be tried had not been raised in good faith." 'Whether the trial judge erred in failing to hold a fitness inquiry.' "Whether Dr Allnutt's report raised a real and substantial concern as to Mr Haddad's unfitness to be tried."]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge did not err in finding that the question of Mr Haddad's unfitness to be tried had not been raised in good faith. It was open to the trial judge, having regard to the overall context of the proceedings, his own observations of Mr Haddad, and Mr Haddad's participation in earlier applications, to conclude that Mr Haddad was pretending that he was unable to conduct his trial and that Dr Allnutt's opinion was based on a false emotional state and presentation. The report therefore had little or no weight and did not raise a real and substantial concern as to unfitness. Because it did not appear that the question of unfitness was raised in good faith, the prohibition in s 10(2)...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Grant leave to the applicant, Mr Haddad, to appeal from the trial judge's order made on 9 March 2020 refusing to vacate the trial date to permit an inquiry into the question of his unfitness to be tried." 'Dismiss that appeal.']