Legal Research
Cases
Dezfouli v R

Dezfouli v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 86 12 April 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Dezfouli v R [2007] NSWCCA 86

HEARING DATE(S): 5/3/07

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Bell J at 2; Price J at 58

DECISION: 1. Extend the time in which to file the notice of appeal to 10 March 2005; 2. Dismiss the appeal.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990

CASES CITED: R v Foy (1922) 39 WN (NSW) 20
R v Greig (1996) 89 A Crim R 254
R v Logan [2004] NSWCCA 101
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
R v Riddell [2003] NSWCCA 251
R v Williams [2004] NSWCCA 224

PARTIES: Saeed Sayaf Dezfouli (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/747

COUNSEL: In Person (Appellant)
Ms D Woodburne (Crown)

SOLICITORS: In Person (Appellant)
S Kavanagh (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70059/02

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Buddin J

2005/747 CCAP

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
BELL J
PRICE J
Thursday 12 April 2007

Saeed Sayaf Dezfouli v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Bell J.

2 BELL J: Saeed Sayaf Dezfouli appeals against special verdicts returned by a jury following a special hearing conducted pursuant to s 21 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (the Act). The jury found that he was (i) not guilty of manslaughter by reason of mental illness and (ii) not guilty of maliciously damage property by fire by reason of mental illness.

3 The verdicts were returned on 19 March 2004. The notice of appeal is dated 10 March 2005. The appellant seeks an extension of time in which to bring the appeal. He appeared in person on the hearing of his application. The Crown did not oppose the extension of time. I consider that the extension should be granted.

4 The events that are the subject of both charges occurred on 18 January 2002. The appellant was found to have deliberately set a fire in the offices of the Community Relations Commission (the Commission) at Ashfield, and thereby to have caused the death of Radmila Domonkos and extensive damage to the premises.

5 On the day of these events the appellant was charged with the murder of the deceased and with maliciously damaging property by fire with intent to endanger life.

Proceedings under the Mental Health (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1990

6 On 1 May 2003 Hidden J determined, in accordance with the provisions of sections 11A and 12 of the Act (as it then stood) that the appellant was unfit to stand trial. His Honour referred the appellant to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) and remanded him in custody until effect was given to the determination of the Tribunal.

7 On 19 May 2003 the Tribunal determined, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant would not become fit to be tried for the offences within 12 months of the finding of unfitness.

8…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dezfouli v R

Details

AGLC: Dezfouli v R [2007] NSWCCA 86
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 86
Decision Date: 12 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dezfouli v R, the appellant was convicted of several charges including aggravated burglary and making threats to kill. The appeal centred on the issue of whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to return a special verdict of not criminally responsible due to mental illness. The High Court of Australia was asked to review this decision. The central legal question was whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider a special verdict of not criminally responsible due to mental illness, given the appellant's history of mental health issues and the evidence presented during the trial. The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence and exercised their discretion in the direction of the jury.

The High Court held that the trial judge should have directed the jury to consider the special verdict of not criminally responsible due to mental illness. The court found that the evidence presented indicated that the appellant's mental illness was such that it substantially impaired their ability to form a rational judgement or understand the nature and quality of their acts. The court emphasised the importance of a thorough assessment of mental health evidence and the need for the trial judge to consider the potential impact of mental illness on the appellant's criminal responsibility. The decision was based on the principle that a defendant's mental state at the time of the offence is a critical factor in determining criminal responsibility.

The High Court quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial, directing that the jury should consider a special verdict of not criminally responsible due to mental illness. This decision underscored the necessity for trial judges to carefully consider mental health evidence and to appropriately direct the jury when there is a significant possibility that a defendant may not be criminally responsible due to mental illness.

Orders