R v Christos Tsekas

Link copied
Case Copied 18 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Christos Tsekas [2018] NSWDC 187
Hearing dates: 9–10 July 2018
Decision date: 13 July 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Not guilty by reason of mental illness. For orders see [48]

Catchwords: Special hearing; wound with intent to murder
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Mental Health (Forensic Procedure) Act 1990
Cases Cited: R v Istudor [2016] NSWDC 1
R v Minani [2005] NSWCCA 226
R v Porter (1933) HCA 1; (1933) 55 CLR 182
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Christos Tsekas (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
M A Hawkins (Crown)
S Fraser (Accused)
File Number(s): 16/286965
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment ON VERDICT on special hearing

  1. The accused, born on 25 May 1944 and is now 74 years of age, was charged with the following:

  1. On 25 September 2016 in Rockdale in the State of New South Wales, did wound Paul Raymond Jay with intent to murder the said Paul Raymond Jay.

  1. The accused was further charged in the alternative:

  1. (2)   That on 25 September 2016 at Rockdale in the State of New South Wales, did wound Paul Raymond Jay with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

  1. Count 1 on the Indictment was an offence pursuant to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900. The alternative count is an offence pursuant to s 33 (1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

  2. On 17 October 2017 the accused was found unfit for trial by her Honour Judge Syme. He was then referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (“MHRT”) pursuant to s 14(1)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Procedure) Act 1990 (“MHFP”). On 18 December 2017 the MRHT determined that the accused was unfit to stand trial and was unlikely to become fit within the next 12 months, pursuant to s 16(1). The matter was then referred to the District Court for special hearing. As neither party elected to have the matter heard before a jury, pursuant to section 21A of the MHFP, the matter was set down for determination by judge alone. The special hearing took place on 9 and 10 July 2018.

The evidence

  1. The Crown case was contained in Ex A, a special hearing bundle, which comprised witness statements, an ERISP DVD and transcript, crime scene photographs, together with various medical records and expert medical reports (Ex A1 to Ex A21). Senior Constable Spargo (nee Duncan) gave brief evidence, and through her the ERISP was played. She was not cross‑examined. The transcript of the ERISP became Ex B.

  2. The evidence established that the accused had been diagnosed with a schizo-affective disorder and had multiple psychiatric admissions from 1973. He had been treated over the years with a range of anti-psychotic, mood stabilising and antidepressant medications. The accused had also suffered co-morbid cognitive impairment which was believed to be attributable to his long-standing psychiatric illness, rather than a progressive neuro-cognitive disorder.

  3. On 29 March 2012, he moved into hostel care at Bruce Sharp Lodge in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Christos Tsekas 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
[2018] NSWDC 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Christos Tsekas was heard and determined. The defendant, Christos Tsekas, was charged with wounding with intent to murder. The dispute centred on the defendant's mental state at the time of the alleged offence and whether he could be held criminally responsible for his actions. The case proceeded to a special hearing to determine the defendant's mental capacity and fitness to stand trial.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant had the requisite intent to commit the crime and whether he could be held criminally liable given his mental condition. The defence argued that the defendant was not of sound mind and did not have the capacity to form the necessary intent to commit the crime. The prosecution, however, contended that despite any mental health issues, the defendant was aware of his actions and understood the consequences.

The court carefully examined evidence from psychiatric experts, testimonies from witnesses, and the defendant's behaviour at the time of the offence. Ultimately, the court found that the defendant suffered from a significant mental disorder that impaired his ability to form the requisite intent. The court concluded that the defendant was not criminally responsible for his actions due to his mental illness. Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court ordered that he be detained in a secure mental health facility pending further review of his condition.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not guilty by reason of mental illness. For orders see [48]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.