DPP v Farquharson (Ruling no 1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1419 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ROBERT DONALD WILLIAM FARQUHARSON

Ruling No 1

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	16 August 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Farquharson (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 294

---

Criminal law and procedure – murder – limitation of ambit of Basha inquiry.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr J Rapke QC Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey Mr C Mylonas	Victoria Legal Aid

---

HIS HONOUR:

I am not persuaded that any of these matters are appropriate for a Basha Inquiry.[1] They seem to me to be holistic, general and exploratory. One can well understand that it might be desirable from Mr Morrissey's point of view to wish to have a dry run on numerous things, and to explore things, and that is a sensible desire; but the system of the court does not accommodate a dry jury trial without a jury, and then a jury trial with a jury. Such a course is contrary to the principles stated in R v Callaghan[2] per Winneke P at 90-91 [21], R v Rowley[3] per Young CJ at 375 and Beach J at 380 and R v Frugtniet and Frugtniet[4] per curiam. For the reasons eloquently stated in Frugtniet, I think that this application is much too broad, and holistic, and exploratory to be granted.
[1]R v Basha (1989) A Crim R 337.
[2][2001] 4 VR 79 and in whose reasons Brooking JA and O’Bryan AJA agreed.
[3](1986) 23 A Crim R 371.
[4][1999] 2 VR 297 at 303.

I said to Mr Morrissey, and I have always done this, that if there is a specific problem that is finite, although to do so is not procedurally pure, as a matter of fairness I say to counsel ask a couple of questions before the jury comes in or overnight; but that is not what Mr Morrissey is seeking here. He is seeking a holistic, exploratory inquiry and I consider that is inappropriate.

- - -

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Farquharson involved a dispute regarding the applicability of the Basha inquiry in a murder case. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the Basha inquiry should be limited in its scope when determining whether a defendant is fit to stand trial for a serious offence such as murder.

The court was required to decide whether the Basha inquiry should be limited in its scope when determining the fitness of a defendant to stand trial for a serious offence such as murder. The Basha inquiry refers to the assessment of a defendant's fitness to stand trial, which involves evaluating their mental state and capacity to understand the proceedings and participate in their defence. The court considered whether the Basha inquiry should be limited in its scope when determining the fitness of a defendant to stand trial for a serious offence such as murder.

The court concluded that the Basha inquiry should not be limited in its scope when determining the fitness of a defendant to stand trial for a serious offence such as murder. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that defendants are fit to stand trial and participate in their defence, regardless of the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the Basha inquiry should be conducted in a comprehensive manner, taking into account all relevant factors, to ensure that the defendant's fitness to stand trial is properly assessed. The court found that the Basha inquiry should not be limited in its scope when determining the fitness of a defendant to stand trial for a serious offence such as murder.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established