R v Al-Qas Soomo [2024] NSWSC 674

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Al-Qas Soomo [2024] NSWSC 674 Hearing dates: 28 May 2024 Date of orders: 28 May 2024 Decision date: 28 May 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Campbell J Decision: (1) Adjourn the special hearing fixed to commence on 3 June 2024. (2) Relist the special hearing to commence on 11 November 2024. (3) List the matter for further directions before me at 9.30am on 25 June 2024. Catchwords: MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – person unfit to be tried – special hearing – necessity of adjournment for further psychiatric evaluation – adjournment in the interests of justice Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex (Crown) Alam Al-Qas Soomo (Accused) Representation: Counsel: M Hay (Crown) S Corish (Accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) SANS Law (Accused) File Number(s): 2020/00339992

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. The accused is charged with the murder of his wife. He was arraigned in this Court on 5 August 2022. 2. On 23 February 2023, McNaughton J found the accused unfit to plead, and as such, he has since then been under the supervision of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the evidence available to them, continued to certify the accused unfit, prognosticating that he is unlikely to be fit within 12 months. In accordance with the legislation, the Director of Public Prosecutions has determined to proceed to a special hearing which was fixed to commence before me on 3 June 2024. 3. The case was before me for directions on 14 March 2024, and it was obvious on what was then limited material available that there were some unusually complex factors affecting the question of whether Mr Soomo suffered from either a mental health impairment or a neurocognitive impairment as at the date of the homicide in June 2020. Indeed, there was a significant uncertainty expressed by the experts who had been qualified by the parties as to the nature of any condition and its effect upon him at the relevant time. Notwithstanding the intervention of the fitness question, those expert reports from Dr Martin for the Crown and Dr Eagle for the defence had not been updated for some time. 4. When counsel appeared before me in March, some information had become available suggesting that the nature of the condition relevant for present purposes was a congenital or genetic condition known as Perry's Syndrome, a recognised precursor to dementia. Still at that time, however, very little information was available. 5. More recently, the parties have obtained a copy of a report prepared for the Tribunal by Dr Trevor Ma, forensic psychiatrist, who has conducted a very thorough review of the available clinical material commencing back on 3 December 2020. Although Dr Ma's report is dated 20 February 2024, it was not available to counsel or me when the matter was before me in March, and according to the affidavit of the accused's solicitor, appears only to have become available to him in about May. 6. Dr Ma's report was promptly sent to Dr Eagle when it came into the hands of the accused's solicitor, and she commendably provided an eight-page report on the very same day dealing with the issues so far as she could. However, and perhaps unsurprisingly, given the amount of material summarised by Dr Ma, and because Dr Eagle had not assessed Mr Soomo since 2 December 2021, for the reasons I have adverted to, she expressed as an essential requirement that she be given the opportunity to fully review all the relevant clinical material referred to by Dr Ma prior to re-assessing Mr Soomo. Dr Eagle was of the view that all of that might take three to four months. I assume part of that is because she is such a busy, respected professional. 7. I am informed by the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Hay, that Dr Ma's report was also forwarded to Dr Martin who had also responded promptly to a request for an update. I am also informed that he, like Dr Eagle, needs to review all the material referred to by Dr Ma, unsurprisingly, and then will need to reassess Mr Soomo; all of which will take about the same period of three or four months. 8. When the matter was called on before me, I did express my concern in definite terms about the fact that as it is now nearly four years since the homicide and his arrest, Mr Soomo, the community, the Court, and the family victims would be entitled to regard the passing of time since his arrest without resolution of the matter one way or another as verging on the unacceptable. 9. In any event, Mr Corish of learned counsel and Mr Hay have explained to me the difficulties, which I accept, given the uncertainties surrounding Mr Soomo's condition and the question of how it may have affected him on the occasion on which he killed his wife. I am satisfied that it is essential in the interests of justice that the special hearing be adjourned to enable the parties the opportunity further investigate the matter and prepare their cases. For that reason, I accede to the application for adjournment made by Mr Corish on behalf of Mr Soomo, unopposed, as it is, by the Crown. 10. It seems to me, however, given what has proved to be the complexity of the matter, and the volume of material that has accumulated concerning Mr Soomo's condition over the last four years, that it would be preferable for the parties to come back at a relatively early date to report on how continued preparations are unfolding. For these reasons, I make the following orders: 1. Adjourn the special hearing fixed to commence on 3 June 2024. 2. Relist the special hearing to commence on 11 November 2024. 3. List the matter for further directions before me at 9.30am on 25 June 2024.