R v Al-Qas Soomo - [2025] NSWSC 204

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Al-Qas Soomo [2025] NSWSC 204
Hearing dates: 7 March 2025
Date of orders: 19 March 2025
Decision date: 19 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
1) Under section 65 of Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), I refer Alam Al-Qas Soomo to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
2) Under s 65(2) of the said Act, I order that Mr Al-Qas Soomo be held in custody in an appropriate Correctional Centre until further assessment by the Tribunal.
3) I direct that the Registrar inform the Tribunal of the limiting terms I have nominated and of these orders.
4) Direct that the Registrar provide the Tribunal with a copy of my reasons.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – special hearing where the defendant is unfit to be tried – where the defendant suffers from a Psychotic Disorder –imposition of a limiting term under Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act – nominating a best estimate of the sentence that would have been passed in an ordinary trial – consideration of objective seriousness of the offences – consideration of aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances in determining the limiting term

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health & Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
Muldrock v the Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229; (2012) 227 A Crim R 217
R v Al-Qas Soomo [2024] NSWSC 1461
R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239
R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Engbert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Mailes (2004) 62 NSWLR 181; [2004] NSWCCA 394
R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120; (1999) 108 A Crim R 85
R v Peterson (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1080
R v Ryan (1995) 90 A Crim R 191
R v Warren Scott (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1646

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Alam Al-Qas Soomo (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Hay (Crown)
S Corish (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
SANS Law (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/339992; 2021/5289
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

On 23 February 2023, McNaughton J found the defendant, Alam Al-Qas Soomo, unfit to be tried under s 46 of the Mental Health & Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (“the Act”; unless otherwise specified all refences to legislation are to the Act). Her Honour referred the defendant to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”) for review from time to time in accordance with the Act. On review, the MHRT has continued to certify the defendant as unfit to be tried.
After conducting a special hearing under the provisions of the Act on an indictment containing four counts, on 19 November 2024, I brought in the following verdicts under s 59:

(1) For count 1, on the limited…

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 R v Al-Qas Soomo

Details

AGLC: R v Al-Qas Soomo [2025] NSWSC 204
Case: [2025] NSWSC 204
Decision Date: 19 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Al-Qas Soomo, was found to be unfit to be tried due to a Psychotic Disorder and was the subject of a special hearing under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. The primary issue before the court was the imposition of a limiting term on the sentence that would have been passed in an ordinary trial. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the offences committed by the appellant, along with any aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, in determining the appropriate limiting term.

The court meticulously examined the nature and gravity of the offences, as well as the appellant's mental health condition and its impact on his fitness to be tried. In determining the limiting term, the court focused on the best estimate of the sentence that would have been passed in an ordinary trial, taking into account the mitigating factors and the objective seriousness of the crimes. The court also weighed the aggravating factors present in the case to arrive at a fair and just outcome.

After a thorough analysis of the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the limiting term should be set at a specific number of years, reflecting the severity of the offences and the appellant's mental health condition. The court recognised the importance of ensuring that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crimes committed, while also considering the appellant's inability to stand trial due to his mental illness.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a limiting term on the sentence, which was set at the number of years determined by the court. The appellant was to be detained under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act until the limiting term was served, at which point his further detention would be subject to review by the relevant authorities.

Orders