R v Tantra (No 1) [2010] NSWSC 394

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Tantra (No 1) [2010] NSWSC 394

HEARING DATE(S) : 27 April - 30 April 2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 30 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF : R A Hulme J

DECISION : I decline the invitation to return a verdict of acquittal at this stage.

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - murder - judge alone trial - Prasad application

LEGISLATION CITED : Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

CASES CITED : R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191 R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161

PARTIES : Regina Vita Tantra

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2008/5737

COUNSEL : Mr C McPherson (Crown) Mr C Bruce SC (Accused)

SOLICITORS : Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Legal Aid

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

R A Hulme J

30 April 2010

2008/5737 Regina v Vita TANTRA

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The accused is the subject of a special hearing, having been found unfit to be tried and the Mental Health Review Tribunal having found that he would not become fit to be tried in the ensuing twelve months. He has been arraigned upon an indictment alleging that he had murdered Ms Linda Tregerthan at Byron Bay on 30 August 2004. He is taken to have pleaded not guilty. All of the foregoing have been pursuant to provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

2 Mr Bruce SC who is appearing for the accused has made what is referred to as a "Prasad application". He has asked that I direct myself that I can bring in a verdict of not guilty at any stage after the end of the Crown case. We have now reached that stage.

3 This is a reference to R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161 which stands for the proposition that an accused person can ask the trial judge to direct the jury that they are entitled to acquit the accused at any time after the close of the Crown case without hearing the defence case, addresses or the summing-up. It has been said that the power of a trial judge to do so should be exercised sparingly and only where the evidence lacks cogency: R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191.