R v Stojic - [2018] NSWSC 1893

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stojic [2018] NSWSC 1893
Hearing dates: 30 November 2018
Date of orders: 30 November 2018
Decision date: 07 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) In accordance with s 14(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), the matter is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

(2) In accordance with s 14(b)(iii) of the Act, the accused in remanded in custody until the determination of the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to s 16 of the Act.
(3) The Registrar of the Supreme Court is directed to provide the following documentation to the Mental Health Review Tribunal within 14 days:
(a) A copy of the finding and reasons;
(b) A copy of the orders made;
(c) A copy of the transcript of the proceedings;
(d) A copy of the psychiatric reports
(e) A copy of the Crown Case Statement.
Catchwords: CRIME – murder charge – fitness to stand trial – consideration of the Presser criteria – psychiatrists in agreement on unfitness – held unfit to be tried – referred to Mental Health Review Tribunal
Legislation Cited: Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 8, 10, 11, 12, 14.
Cases Cited: Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41
R v Presser [1958] VR 45
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Simon Slavko Stojic (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Cooley (Crown)
B Clark (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Boyd House & Partners (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/231506
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 30 November 2018, the Court issued orders the effect of which was to find the accused, Simon Slavko Stojic, unfit to be tried and referring Mr Stojic to the Mental Health Review Tribunal pursuant to the terms of s 14 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) (hereinafter “the Act”). The accused was charged with the murder of Brett Jardine at Kingsgrove on 26 July 2017. The deceased, Mr Jardine, was shot, a number of times, with 0.32 calibre bullets that struck the deceased in the left shoulder and abdomen. The injuries were, as is obvious, fatal. This occurred at about 2:50 AM.
Fifteen days prior to the murder, according to the evidence that would otherwise have been adduced by the Crown, the accused was seen with a pistol of the same calibre as the murder weapon. CCTV footage shows the accused walking from his business to the location of the deceased's campervan (where the shooting occurred) around the time of the murder.
The Crown also was to have relied upon telephone records that disclose that the accused was in the area at the relevant time. Further, the accused had said that there was a dead body in the campervan, prior to the deceased being located. Admissions were made by the deceased and, on a search by Police, fired cartridge cases of the same calibre as were used to…

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 Stojic

Details

AGLC: R v Stojic [2018] NSWSC 1893
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1893
Decision Date: 07 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stojic, the accused was charged with murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute was whether Stojic was fit to stand trial. The court was tasked with determining the accused's fitness to be tried based on the evidence presented by two psychiatrists who unanimously concluded that Stojic was unfit to stand trial. The issue before the court was whether Stojic's unfitness to stand trial, as determined by the psychiatrists, warranted a declaration of unfitness in line with the criteria established by the case of Presser.

The court examined the evidence provided by the two psychiatrists, who both assessed Stojic under the criteria outlined in Presser. These criteria focus on the accused's ability to understand the nature of the proceedings, to instruct counsel, to comprehend the evidence, and to give a defence. The court considered the detailed reports and the testimony of the psychiatrists, who were in agreement that Stojic did not meet the required standards of fitness. The court accepted the unanimous expert opinion and concluded that Stojic was indeed unfit to stand trial. The decision to declare Stojic unfit was consistent with the legal precedent that such a declaration should be made when there is a consensus among qualified medical professionals.

Consequently, the court declared Stojic unfit to stand trial and ordered his referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. This tribunal is responsible for making further determinations regarding Stojic's mental health and potential treatment. The court's decision was grounded in the established criteria for assessing fitness to stand trial, ensuring that Stojic's rights and the integrity of the judicial process were upheld. The outcome reflects the legal framework designed to balance the rights of the accused with the need for a fair trial.

Orders