R v Al-Qas Soomo - [2024] NSWSC 1461

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Al-Qas Soomo [2024] NSWSC 1461
Hearing dates: 11-13 November 2024
Date of orders: 19 November 2024
Decision date: 19 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) On the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence of intimidation charged by Count 1.
(2) On the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged by count 3 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Soneevia Al-Qas Soomo.
(3) On the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged by Count 3 of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Sonia Al-Qas Soomo.
(4) On the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence of the manslaughter of Samar Shlemoon as an alternative to Count 4 in the indictment.
(5) Direct the Registrar to forward to the Mental Health Review Tribunal a copy of my published reasons, the psychiatric evidence contained in Exhibit A; Tab B, and a copy of the transcript of the concurrent evidence of Dr Eagle and Dr Martin.
(6) List the matter for proceedings on fixing the limiting term before Justice Campbell on 2:00 p.m., Friday 7 March 2025.

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – person unfit to be tried – special hearing – domestic violence – murder – obsessive and delusional jealousy – whether mental health impairment – whether condition was such that the defendant did not know that the act was wrong – mental health impairment defence not made out for Counts 1 to 3 – partial defence under s 23A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) made out for the charge of murder – verdict of on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed an available alternative of manslaughter

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 23A, 59
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 28, 33, 36, 40, 46, 49, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 63, 78, 80

Cases Cited:
Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3
Carter v R [2019] NSWCCA 11
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28
R v Hadfield (1800) 27 State Trials 1281
R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Pratt [2009] NSWSC 1108
R v Rodrigues [2010] NSWSC 198
R v Codere [1916] 12 CR App R 21
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
Stanton v the Queen [2003] HCA 29; 77 ALJR 1151
Stapleton v R (1952) 86 CLR 358; [1952] HCA 56
The King v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; [1933] HCA 1

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

JUDGMENT

After conducting an inquiry under s 40(2) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the “Act”) into whether the defendant,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Al-Qas Soomo and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 1461
Decision Date: 19 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Al-Qas Soomo involved the defendant charged with the murder of his partner. The dispute centred on whether the defendant was fit to stand trial and, if so, whether he was guilty of murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant claimed that he suffered from a mental health impairment which rendered him unfit to stand trial. This claim was challenged by the prosecution, who argued that the defendant's actions were premeditated and deliberate, driven by obsessive and delusional jealousy. The court was required to decide on the defendant's fitness to stand trial and, if found fit, whether he was guilty of murder or whether a partial defence applied.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and assessed the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence. The court found that the defendant was not fit to stand trial due to his mental health impairment. However, the court also determined that the defendant's mental condition did not absolve him of criminal responsibility for the murder charge. The court found that the defendant was suffering from a mental health impairment but concluded that his condition did not meet the criteria for a complete defence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). However, the court did find that the partial defence under section 23A of the Act was made out, resulting in a verdict of manslaughter on the limited evidence available.

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties and concluded that the defendant was unfit to stand trial due to his mental health impairment. The court found that the defendant was suffering from a mental health impairment but that his condition did not absolve him of criminal responsibility for the murder charge. The court found that the partial defence under section 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) was made out, resulting in a verdict of manslaughter on the limited evidence available. The court ordered that the defendant be detained in a psychiatric facility until such time as he is deemed fit to stand trial or until such time as his sentence is determined.

Orders