Regina v Robert Joseph Saad - [2002] NSWSC 146

CITATION: Regina v Robert Joseph Saad [2002] NSWSC 146

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70093/01

HEARING DATE(S): 22 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 22 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Robert Joseph Saad

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1

COUNSEL : P. Dare - Crown
P. Bodor QC - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Nikola Velcic & Assoc. - Prisoner

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 1990

DECISION: Not guilty by reason of mental illness; to be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at the Long Bay Correctional Cente, or such other place as should be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of the law

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J

Friday 22 February 2002

70093/01 – REGINA v ROBERT JOSEPH SAAD
ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: This morning the Crown called for trial in this Court Mr Robert Joseph Saad. Mr Saad appeared in custody and represented by experienced Queen's counsel.

2 An indictment was presented against Mr Saad, that indictment charging him with having, on 25 December 2000 at North Rocks in this State, murdered one Lisa Jane Daniel.

3 In what is now to follow, I shall refer to Mr Saad as “the accused” and to Miss Daniel as the victim.

4 Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. There was thereupon tendered, and admitted into evidence as Exhibit A in the trial, a document having the effect, put simply, of the accused and the Director of Public Prosecutions both consenting to the trial of the accused by judge alone. That document is expressed to be an election made pursuant to section 32(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act1986. In fact, the relevant law is now stated in section 16 of the same Act.

5 I was satisfied that the document represented an authentic election on the part of the accused. I was satisfied that all the other statutory requirements of section 16, and in particular sub-section 1 of that section, had been complied with. The trial of the accused has proceeded, therefore, as a trial by judge alone.

6 The entirety of the evidence in the trial has been documentary evidence. The documents in question have been arranged in a folder which has been admitted into evidence and marked Exhibit B on the trial. There will be found in a pocket in the front of the exhibit three sheets which I have caused to be kept there as a matter of clerical convenience. They do not form part of the exhibit.

7 The first page of the exhibit is a table of contents which is self-explanatory. I have marked in red the items numbered 2 through 12 in that table of contents, thereby indicating that they are the documents to be found in the folder and actually constituting the exhibit that is now Exhibit B in the trial. The initialled note at the…

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 Regina v Robert Joseph Saad

Details

AGLC: Regina v Robert Joseph Saad [2002] NSWSC 146
Case: [2002] NSWSC 146
Decision Date: 22 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Robert Joseph Saad, the defendant was charged with the murder of Lisa Jane Daniel on 25 December 2000. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division, before Sully J. The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the defendant was not guilty by reason of mental illness at the time of the offence.

The court found that the Crown had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had caused the death of the victim by strangulation, and that he had either intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon her. However, the court also found that the defendant was not criminally responsible for his actions due to a mental illness. The evidence, including the defendant's own account of the events, his self-harm, and expert psychiatric opinions, demonstrated that he was suffering from a psychotic disorder at the time of the offence. The court concluded that the defendant's mental illness met the criteria for a special verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

In accordance with the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, the court ordered that the defendant be detained in the psychiatric ward of the hospital at Long Bay Correctional Centre, or such other place as should be determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law. This decision ensures that the defendant receives appropriate psychiatric treatment and that public safety is maintained.

Orders