R v Bouggas [2025] NSWSC 122

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bouggas [2025] NSWSC 122 Hearing dates: 11 – 15, 18 – 21, 25 November and 5 December 2024 Date of orders: 28 February 2025 Decision date: 28 February 2025 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Wright J Decision: (1) In respect of count 1, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered. (2) In respect of count 2, a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is to be entered. (3) Pursuant to s 61(2) and s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Christopher Bouggas is to be detained in his present place of custody, or at such other place as is lawfully determined, until such time as he is released by due process of law. (4) Pursuant to s 67 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), Christopher Bouggas is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal. Directions: (1) The Registrar of the Court is to notify the Minister for Health and the Mental Health Review Tribunal of these verdicts and orders within 7 days and is to provide to the Tribunal: (a) a copy of the judgment and orders; (b) copies of exhibits including the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Nielssen and copies of the victim impact statements of Shawn Finlay, Shauna Watson, and Brett Hall and Brett Walton. (2) The Registrar of the Court is to notify Justice Health of these verdicts and orders and provide a copy of the judgment and orders together with each of the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Nielssen to Justice Health within 7 days. Catchwords: CRIME – murder – special hearing – whether acts causing death were the acts of the accused – circumstantial case – accused's acts caused the deaths of the two deceased – no point of principle MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings –accused unfit to stand trial – defence of mental health impairment – whether accused had a mental health impairment at time of carrying out the acts – whether the mental health impairment had the effect that accused did not know the nature and quality of the act and that the act was wrong – requirements of s 28(1) and (2) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) met – defence of mental health impairment made out CRIME – murder – defences – mental health impairment – where unanimous expert evidence established defence of mental health impairment available – verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible – no point of principle EVIDENCE – hearsay – exceptions – criminal proceedings – Evidence Act section 65(1) and (2)(c) – where maker of representations not available to give evidence – whether representation made in circumstances that make it highly probable that the representations reliable – not established that representations made in such circumstances – no objection to admission of representations for purpose of mental health impairment defence EVIDENCE – tendency and coincidence evidence – criminal proceedings – whether evidence has significant probative value – evidence established state of mind rather than tendency and thus did not have significant probative value in establishing the asserted tendency – evidence did not have significant probative value in establishing that improbable that the events occurred coincidentally – evidence rejected as tendency and coincidence evidence - no objection to admission of the evidence for purpose of mental health impairment defence and, in some cases, as to the accused's state of mind Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 59, 65, 67, 94, 97-98, 101 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 28, 33, 36, 38, 53- 56, 58-59, 61, 67 Cases Cited: Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211 Elomar v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; 316 ALR 206 Harris v R [2005] NSWCCA 432; 158 A Crim R 454 Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28 Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 R v Ambrosoli (2002) 55 NSWLR 603; [2002] NSWCCA 386 R v Bouggas [2023] NSWSC 352 R v Gale; R v Duckworth [2012] NSWCCA 174; 217 A Crim R 487 R v Huynh [2023] NSWSC 920 R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226 R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292 R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75 Sio v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 47; [2016] HCA 32 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (Crown) Christopher Bouggas (Accused) Representation: Counsel: P Hogan / S Gul (Crown) T Quilter (Accused)