R v KF - [2025] NSWDC 457

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v KF [2025] NSWDC 457
Hearing dates: 3 June 2025, 12 June 2025, 17 October 2025
Date of orders: 7 November 2025
Decision date: 07 November 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) The order will be made as sought by the Crown. The parties are asked to prepare an appropriate short minute of order in line with these reasons

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings — Special hearing

Legislation Cited:
Child Protection (Offender’s Registration) Act 2000
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act (Commonwealth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020
Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Act 1985

Cases Cited:
Kelly v The Queen [2004] 218 CLR 216
Taylor v Commissioner of Police NSW [2024] NSWCA 285

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
KF (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M. Heffernan for the Crown
Mr B. Cochrane for the Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
James Fuggle Rummery Solicitors for the Accused

File Number(s): 2023166135

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 5 December 2024 following a fitness hearing KF (“the defendant”) was found to be unfit to be tried in respect of numerous charges of sexual offending. On 12 June 2025, following a special hearing special verdicts were entered pursuant to s59(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (“the Mental Health Act”), that the acts comprising counts 1-6 inclusive and 8 set out in indictment 22.2 are proven, “but the defendant is not criminally responsible”. Upon the return of such a verdict the Court may make one or more of the orders set out in s33(1) of the Mental Health Act.
On 17 October 2025, pursuant to section 33(1)(c), orders were made that the defendant be released on certain conditions. In addition to those conditions, the Crown sought an order under s3C(1)(a) of the Child Protection (Offender’s Registration) Act 2000 (“the CPOR Act”). The defendant resists such an order being made on the basis that the orders made under s33(1)(c) are not a sentence, and that as s3C(1)(a) requires there to be a “sentence” to be enlivened, there is no basis for the making of the order.

The issue

Section 3C relevantly is in the following terms:

(1) A court (the "sentencing court" ) that sentences a person for a registrable offence must make an order (a "registrable person order" ) that the person is a registrable person if--
(a) for a person who was an adult when the registrable offence was committed--the sentencing court imposes a sentence for the registrable offence, other than a no conviction order, or
(b) for a person who was a child when the registrable offence was committed--
(i) the sentencing court imposes a sentence for the registrable offence, other than a no conviction order, and
(ii) the prosecution requests the registrable person order be made, and
(iii) the sentencing court is satisfied the registrable person order is…

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 KF

Details

AGLC: R v KF [2025] NSWDC 457
Case: [2025] NSWDC 457
Decision Date: 07 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v KF was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, KF, had pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated burglary. The dispute centred around the defendant's mental health at the time of the offence, with the Crown seeking a special hearing to determine whether KF was fit to stand trial. The case hinged on whether the defendant's mental health condition impacted his ability to participate meaningfully in the trial process.

The primary legal issue the court had to resolve was whether KF was fit to stand trial. This required an examination of KF's mental health status and its effect on his capacity to understand the proceedings, instruct counsel, and participate in his defence. The court also needed to consider the appropriate measures to ensure that any trial would be fair and just, given KF's condition. The court's analysis involved assessing expert psychiatric evidence and determining the implications of the defendant's mental health for the administration of justice.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that KF was unfit to stand trial due to his mental health condition. The court accepted the expert evidence that KF's condition significantly impaired his ability to understand the proceedings and participate in his defence. The court concluded that a fair trial could not be conducted under the current circumstances. Consequently, the Crown's application for a special hearing was granted, and the matter was adjourned pending further medical treatment and assessment of KF's fitness to stand trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The order will be made as sought by the Crown. The parties are asked to prepare an appropriate short minute of order in line with these reasons

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v KF [2025] NSWDC 457
Hearing dates:	3 June 2025, 12 June 2025, 17 October 2025
Date of orders:	7 November 2025
Decision date:	07 November 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) The order will be made as sought by the Crown. The parties are asked to prepare an appropriate short minute of order in line with these reasons
Catchwords:	MENTAL HEALTH — Criminal proceedings — Special hearing
Legislation Cited:	Child Protection (Offender’s Registration) Act 2000 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes Act (Commonwealth) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders Act 1985
Cases Cited:	Kelly v The Queen [2004] 218 CLR 216 Taylor v Commissioner of Police NSW [2024] NSWCA 285
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) KF (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M. Heffernan for the Crown Mr B. Cochrane for the Accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown James Fuggle Rummery Solicitors for the Accused
File Number(s):	2023166135