R v Opit

[2006] NSWSC 426

CITATION:	R v OPIT [2006] NSWSC 426
HEARING DATE(S):	05/05/06
JUDGMENT OF:	Adams J at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	05/05/2006
DECISION:	Bail is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	Bail Act 1978 - serious psychiatric condition with delusions - non-availability of residential facility - safety of public
PARTIES:	Regina v Simeon Marcus OPIT
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2006/907
COUNSEL:	Crown: E. Gough
SOLICITORS:	Applicant: in person

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 5 MAY 2006

2006/907 - REGINA v SIMEON MARCUS OPIT

(VIDEO LINK TO METROPOLITAN REMAND CENTRE)

JUDGMENT - On application for bail

1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant is a relatively young man who is now almost 27. He has a history of relatively minor offences, but plainly is psychiatrically compromised in a way that is troubling because it appears that that condition materially led to his committing acts of violence. It may be that he has a substantial defence arising out of his mental state in relation to those matters if he was, as seems to be very likely the case, delusional at the time.

2 He is presently taking anti-psychotic medication which is of use to him. He appears calm and reasonable in making his application. I do not wish to question him further, but I suspect that he was not taking medication at the time of these offences.

3 It is extremely worrying and, to my mind, contrary to basic human rights for someone in the applicant’s position to be kept in prison rather than in an appropriate psychiatric centre for assessment. If it were not for the violence demonstrated in the offences, I would give him bail without hesitation and impose appropriate conditions so that he can be assessed.

4 I must say that it is with a considerable degree of personal anguish that I feel obliged to refuse bail because there is no place for him in the mental health system of this State. I can say no more than that this is a disgrace.

5 In the result, though, I feel that I have no choice, both for the safety of this applicant and for the public. Were there to be any substantial delay in the provision of a psychiatric assessment and in his coming before a court to enable that to be considered, a grant of bail would have been inevitable. However, he comes before the Tweed Heads Local Court on 29 May. I am assured that by that time a psychiatric assessment will be available and the Local Court has wide powers to deal with cases of this kind.

6 It is most regrettable that the Courts are faced with these conditions quite frequently and are obliged to make orders which are an affront to the general sense of decency and compassion which I believe our community accepts. For all that, however, I am obliged to refuse bail.

************