R v Boyd - [2017] NSWSC 1099

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Boyd [2017] NSWSC 1099
Hearing dates: 18 August 2017
Date of orders: 18 August 2017
Decision date: 18 August 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Application by Accused to vacate trial date refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - accused charged with murder, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and dangerous driving during a police pursuit - defence application to vacate trial date - claim that adjournment necessary to explore possible partial defence of substantial impairment- psychiatric and neuropsychological reports already obtained - no evidence of cognitive impairment on the basis of possible acquired brain injury - claim that further testing in 12 months’ time might indicate whether there is any degree of cognitive impairment - no proper basis to vacate trial date - application to vacate trial refused
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Alexandroaia (1995) 81 A Crim R 286
Slotboom v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 18
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Stephen James Boyd (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Maxwell QC (Crown)
Mr WP Brewer (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associates Lawyers

File Number(s): 2016/127282; 2016/130612
Publication restriction: Accused pleaded guilty to Counts 1, 2 and 4 on 23 August 2017. Sentencing hearing to take place on 1 December 2017.

Judgment

JOHNSON J: By Notice of Motion filed in Court on 17 August 2017, the Accused, Stephen James Boyd, seeks to have vacated his trial fixed to proceed in this Court commencing on 28 August 2017.
Several items of evidence have been placed before the Court at the hearing of this application to vacate the trial. Firstly, the affidavit of Ross Michael Hill (the Accused’s solicitor) affirmed 16 August 2017 (which annexes two reports of Doctor Ilana Hepner dated 22 June 2017 and 14 August 2017), secondly, a report of Doctor Richard Furst dated 8 March 2017 (Exhibit A), thirdly, a statement of Daniel Boyd dated 11 May 2016 tendered by the Crown (Exhibit 1). The Crown also tenders a statement of James Gardner dated 29 April 2016 (Exhibit 2), a Tendency Notice dated 8 June 2017 served by the Crown (Exhibit 3) and the Crown Case Statement (Exhibit 4).
Submissions have been made in support of the application to vacate the trial date by Mr Brewer of counsel, who appears for the Accused. The Crown opposes the application to vacate the trial date.
The events giving rise to the charges against the Accused occurred on 24 and 25 April 2016. He was arrested and charged on the latter date. The Accused was committed for trial from the Local Court on 4 May 2017. He appeared in the Arraignments List before me on 2 June 2017 on which occasion the matter was stood over, on the application of the Accused, to 7 July 2017.
On 7 July 2017, the Accused was arraigned before RA Hulme J…

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 Boyd

Details

AGLC: R v Boyd [2017] NSWSC 1099
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1099
Decision Date: 18 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Boyd came before the court where the accused faced charges of murder, wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and dangerous driving during a police pursuit. The defendant applied to vacate the trial date, asserting that an adjournment was necessary to explore the potential partial defence of substantial impairment. This defence hinged on the possibility of cognitive impairment due to an acquired brain injury. The application was based on the premise that further testing in 12 months might reveal such impairment, although existing psychiatric and neuropsychological reports did not show any evidence of cognitive impairment.

The court was required to determine whether the trial date should be vacated to allow for further investigation into the defendant's potential cognitive impairment. The legal issues centred on the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented to substantiate a claim of substantial impairment and whether such a claim provided a proper basis for vacating the trial date. The court considered the weight of the existing reports, the speculative nature of the proposed future testing, and the implications of vacating the trial date on the administration of justice.

The court held that there was no proper basis to vacate the trial date. The existing reports did not indicate cognitive impairment, and the proposed future testing was speculative and uncertain in its outcome. The court noted the importance of maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process, which could be unduly delayed by further investigations into the defence of substantial impairment without clear and compelling evidence. Consequently, the application to vacate the trial date was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the trial would proceed as scheduled, and the application to vacate the trial date was dismissed. The court emphasised the necessity of adhering to the trial timetable unless there was a strong and substantiated reason to do otherwise, which was not present in this case.

Orders