Legal Research
Cases
R v Bouggas

R v Bouggas

Case [2025] NSWSC 122 28 February 2025

Criminal Liability

Mental Health Impairment

Unfitness to Stand Trial

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bouggas [2025] NSWSC 122
Hearing dates: 11 – 15, 18 – 21, 25 November and 5 December 2024
Date of orders: 28 February 2025
Decision date: 28 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1)   In respect of count 1, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.
(2)   In respect of count 2, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered.
(3) Pursuant to s 61(2) and s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Christopher Bouggas is to be detained in his present place of custody, or at such other place as is lawfully determined, until such time as he is released by due process of law.
(4) Pursuant to s 67 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Christopher Bouggas is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
Directions:
(1)   The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these verdicts and orders within 7 days and is to provide to the Tribunal:
(a)   a copy of the judgment and orders;
(b)   copies of exhibits including the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Nielssen and copies of the victim impact statements of Shawn Finlay, Shauna Watson, and Brett Hall and Brett Walton.
(2)   The Registrar of the Court is to notify Justice Health of these verdicts and orders and provide a copy of the judgment and orders together with each of the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Nielssen to Justice Health within 7 days.

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – special hearing – whether acts causing death were the acts of the accused – circumstantial case – accused’s acts caused the deaths of the two deceased – no point of principle
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings –accused unfit to stand trial – defence of mental health impairment – whether accused had a mental health impairment at time of carrying out the acts – whether the mental health impairment had the effect that accused did not know the nature and quality of the act and that the act was wrong – requirements of s 28(1) and (2) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) met – defence of mental health impairment made out
CRIME – murder – defences – mental health impairment – where unanimous expert evidence established defence of mental health impairment available – verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible – no point of principle
EVIDENCE – hearsay – exceptions – criminal proceedings – Evidence Act section 65(1) and (2)(c) – where maker of representations not available to give evidence – whether representation made in circumstances that make it highly probable that the representations reliable – not established that representations made in such circumstances – no objection to admission of representations for purpose…

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 Bouggas

Details

AGLC: R v Bouggas [2025] NSWSC 122
Case: [2025] NSWSC 122
Decision Date: 28 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bouggas, the accused faced charges of murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on whether the accused's actions were responsible for the deaths of the two deceased individuals. The court also had to consider whether the accused was fit to stand trial due to a potential mental health impairment at the time of the acts.

The legal issues involved determining whether the accused's acts caused the deaths, and whether the accused was fit to stand trial. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the accused had a mental health impairment that affected their understanding of the nature and quality of their acts and their knowledge that the acts were wrong, as per sections 28(1) and 28(2) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW). The court also examined whether certain evidence could be admitted as part of the mental health impairment defence.

The court concluded that the accused had carried out the acts that led to the deaths, but due to unanimous expert evidence, it was determined that the accused had a mental health impairment at the time of the acts. This impairment met the criteria under the Act, rendering the accused not criminally responsible for their actions. The court also found that the evidence presented was admissible for the mental health impairment defence, despite objections regarding hearsay and tendency and coincidence evidence. The court determined that the evidence had significant probative value in relation to the accused's state of mind and did not establish a tendency or coincidence that would be prejudicial.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was found guilty of the act of murder but not criminally responsible due to their mental health impairment. The court emphasised that no point of principle arose from this decision.

Orders