R v Bugmy - [2010] NSWSC 1473

CITATION: R v Bugmy [2010] NSWSC 1473

HEARING DATE(S): 16.12.10

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 16 December 2010

DECISION: 1. That the matter be listed before the Arraignment Judge on 4 February 2011.
2. That Mr Bugmy be remanded in custody in the meantime.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Fitness to Plead - charge of murder - previous fitness hearing and determined to be unfit - referred to Mental Health Review Tribunal - further review - found fit - second fitness hearing - found fit for trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: R v Bugmy [2009] NSWSC 1215
R v Presser (1958) VR 45

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Damien Charles Bugmy (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/5918

COUNSEL: P Barnett SC (Crown)
J Manuell SC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Sol DPP (Crown)
S O'Connor - LAC (Accused)

Extempore - Revised

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

KIRBY J

Friday 16 December 2010

2009/5918 REGINA v Damien Charles BUGMY
JUDGMENT – Fitness to Plead

1 KIRBY J: The accused Damien Charles Bugmy has been committed to the Supreme Court for trial for the murder of his de facto partner Anita Rose Williams. The offence is said to have occurred at Ivanhoe on 14 June 2008. The question comes before me of his fitness to stand trial in respect of that charge, that issue arising under section 11 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

2 Mr Bugmy was arrested on 14 June 2008, that is, the day of the alleged offence.

3 There was a previous fitness hearing conducted before Hidden J (R v Bugmy [2009] NSWSC 1215) which began on 27 October 2009. His Honour described the Crown case in these terms: ( at [2])

“2. Put shortly, it is the Crown case that the accused fatally stabbed Ms Williams at the house where they were staying in the afternoon of 14 June 2008. Their relationship had not been without its difficulties. He had been drinking during the day of the killing and was well affected. There was no eyewitness to the killing, but the accused went to a nearby house and raised the alarm, asking the occupants of that house to ‘come and check’ Ms Williams because ‘there is something wrong with her’. Ambulance officers and police arrived, and the accused said to the police, ‘She’s dead. I can’t believe I killed her.’”

4 Having received medical evidence, and having heard evidence from Professor Hayes and the then solicitor for Mr Bugmy, that is, Ms Emma Manea, Hidden J, on 13 November 2009, made a determination that, as a matter of probability, Mr Bugmy was unfit to be tried. He then referred the matter to the Mental Health Tribunal.

5 On 21 June 2010, the Mental Health Review Tribunal conducted a determination of fitness and published reasons on that day for its view…

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 Bugmy

Details

AGLC: R v Bugmy [2010] NSWSC 1473
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1473
Decision Date: 16 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bugmy, heard in an Australian court, involved the respondent, Bugmy, who was charged with the offence of murder. Bugmy had previously been determined to be unfit to plead due to mental health issues, and a referral was made to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. After further review, the Tribunal found that Bugmy was fit to stand trial, leading to a second fitness hearing. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether Bugmy was fit to stand trial at the time of the second fitness hearing.

The court was required to examine the findings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and determine whether Bugmy's mental health had sufficiently improved to enable him to participate in his defence and understand the proceedings against him. This involved considering expert medical evidence and reports, as well as the overall context of Bugmy's mental health status at the time of the hearing. The court had to balance the principles of fairness to the respondent with the need to ensure that the criminal justice process was not unduly delayed or compromised.

In its decision, the court found that the evidence presented at the second fitness hearing demonstrated that Bugmy's mental health had indeed improved to the extent that he was now fit to stand trial. The court accepted the findings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the expert medical evidence, concluding that Bugmy was capable of understanding the nature of the charges, participating in his defence, and following the court proceedings. The court therefore ruled that Bugmy was fit to stand trial, paving the way for the criminal proceedings to continue. The final orders of the court confirmed that Bugmy was fit to be tried for the offence of murder, and the case proceeded accordingly.

Orders