R v Sultana (No.5)

[2025] NSWSC 1100

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Sultana (No.5) [2025] NSWSC 1100

Hearing dates:

15 July 2025

Date of orders:

15 July 2025

Decision date:

15 July 2025

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Garling J

Decision:

1. Proceedings adjourned to 10.00am on Thursday, 17 July 2025.

2. Recommend that the accused be assessed and if necessary, medicated, by a health professional qualified to address his psychological care prior to being returned to Court on Thursday, 17 July 2025 at 10.00am.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – Adjournment – Where adjournment necessary to allow an accused access to an appropriate medical or psychiatric health practitioner

Legislation Cited:

Not Applicable

Cases Cited:

Not Applicable

Texts Cited:

Not Applicable

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

The Crown
Paul Jason Sultana (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
Y Prowse (Crown)
Dr G Woods KC (Accused)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Proctor & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s):

2023/17108

Publication restriction:

Not Applicable

ex tempore JUDGMENT

1. Application has been made for an adjournment by senior counsel on behalf of the accused. An explanation of the reason for that adjournment has been provided in a written note from the accused. The note indicates that, erroneously, the accused asked his lawyers if he could see particular photographs of the deceased. The photographs are not in evidence. I have not seen them on this application.

2. The viewing of the images has caused significant distress to the accused, and he is unsuccessfully attempting to try to put out of his mind those images so that he can concentrate on the issues relating to the trial and the giving of instructions to his lawyers. He is presently having significant difficulty in so doing. As became apparent yesterday, 14 July 2025, the accused is already in a heightened emotional state. The cause and background to that is apparent on the transcript of the proceedings from yesterday.

3. Senior counsel for the accused seeks an adjournment until Thursday morning, which would be sufficient time to provide the accused with an opportunity to be seen by a health professional to obtain some assistance with respect to his present mental and emotional state.

4. The Crown accepts that there is no reason why the Court should not adjourn this afternoon, but submits that the Court should not adjourn until Thursday, but should adjourn until tomorrow, given that this is the first week of the trial and that the interests of justice, including the interests of the family of the deceased, would suggest that any adjournment is for as short a period as is possible.

5. The accused is presently housed at the Long Bay Correctional Centre complex. He has a stable form of accommodation there which he does not wish to be disrupted. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is that the time taken to transport the accused to court in the morning, and return him in the evening, can be quite extended. He has a long day away from Long Bay, which often means that he gets no more than five or six hours of sleep at night.

6. In one sense, it is in the interests of justice that the trial proceed with sufficient and appropriate speed. In another sense, the interests of justice require that the accused be, mentally, in a state of mind which enables him to give instructions to his lawyers for the conduct of the trial. Whether or not the accused is comfortably and suitably accommodated at Long Bay, as opposed to another correctional centre, as it seems to me, is a secondary issue in terms of importance.

7. I do not suggest that, at the moment, there is any other accommodation available, but I do indicate that, in weighing up all of the issues in the proceedings, the wishes of the accused to remain in particular accommodation may be of less importance than some other issues. All that is really confronting me at the moment is whether I adjourn the matter until Wednesday morning or Thursday morning.

8. If I adjourn it until Wednesday morning, I am presently persuaded that the likelihood of the accused getting any medical or psychiatric assistance from a health professional is close to zero, given the time at which he will arrive back at Long Bay and the time by which he has to leave Long Bay.

9. In those circumstances, only in order to enable the accused to be seen by a medical or health professional at Long Bay, and to ensure that he is adequately treated to enable him to attend the proceedings and give instructions, it is in the interests of justice that the proceedings be adjourned until Thursday morning.

10. I would add that I wish to make it clear that regular adjournments to suit the convenience, or mental state, of the accused are an exception, not the rule. No accused is comfortable going through a trial process. That can be accepted. The simple issue for me is whether the accused is in a fit state to give instructions. That needs to be considered from time to time, in accordance with the legal authorities which apply.

11. The further matter of significance is that, given the contents of application Exhibit AA, it is of the highest importance that the accused be seen before his return to Court on Thursday morning by an appropriate professional, in order to receive attention to and, if appropriate, treatment for, his present state of mind. It is equally necessary that the accused accepts that, if he is advised to take medication or some other form of treatment, he is to take that advice and accept that treatment form. Otherwise, a different issue will present itself to the Court which will need to be remedied.

12. For that reason, I will shortly order that the matter be adjourned and, on the warrant, I will make a recommendation to the effect that he be seen urgently by an appropriate health, being medical or psychiatric, professional.

Orders

13. I make the following orders:

1. Proceedings adjourned to 10.00am on Thursday, 17 July 2025.

2. Recommend that the accused be assessed and if necessary, medicated, by a health professional qualified to address his psychological care prior to being returned to Court on Thursday, 17 July 2025 at 10.00am.

**********

Decision last updated: 25 September 2025