R v Adam Keith WATT [2015] NSWSC 1614

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Adam Keith WATT [2015] NSWSC 1614 Hearing dates: 29 October 2015 Date of orders: 29 October 2015 Decision date: 29 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: 1. The Court determines it is not necessary to proceed with an inquiry as to the accused's fitness to be tried.

2. The proceedings be adjourned to the Arraignments List on 4 December 2015. Catchwords: FITNESS TO BE TRIED – conspiracy to murder – cognitive impairment – Crown proposes to proceed with separate trial against accused – medical opinion unanimous that accused fit for shorter trial – no need to continue with inquiry. Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Div 6 of Pt IB - Mental (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 – s 8 Cases Cited: - R v Presser [1958] VR 45 - R v Watt [2012] NSWSC 1574 Category: Principal judgment Parties: The Queen – Prosecutor Adam Keith Watt – Accused Representation: Counsel: C. Patrick SC – Prosecutor Ms S. Tambyrajah – Accused

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Prosecutor File Number(s): 2014/196231

Judgment (revised from ex tempore) 1. On 27 May 2015 the accused, Adam Keith Watt, was committed for trial to this Court on a charge of conspiracy to murder. Subsequently an indictment was filed in this Court containing four counts. Only the third count concerned Mr Watt. It maintained the charge of conspiracy to murder and included an alternative charge of unauthorised possession of a firearm. The other three counts on the indictment named five other persons. Count 1 alleged that three persons had murdered the person who is alleged to be the object of the conspiracy involving Mr Watt. 2. Before Mr Watt was arraigned an issue was raised as to his fitness to be tried. Pursuant to s 8 of the Mental (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (the "Act"), Johnson J directed that an inquiry into Mr Watt's fitness be undertaken. 3. The inquiry was listed before me on 29 October 2015. Upon the matter being called on the Crown Prosecutor advised the Court that in light of certain medical reports that had been received the Crown had elected to file a stand-alone indictment against Mr Watt and sought to have him tried separately. 4. It was the agreed position of both the Crown Prosecutor and Mr Watt's legal representative that the effect of the medical material was that, provided the trial of Mr Watt proceeded separately and there were appropriate breaks throughout the course of the trial, he was fit to be tried. 5. The parties jointly submitted in light of the material and the Crown's approach to the prosecution there was "no longer any need for such an inquiry" within the meaning of s 10(1)(a) of the Act and thus the inquiry need not be conducted. The parties quite properly accepted that the Court needed to satisfy its own view on that matter. 6. I have now considered the material and I have also considered whether it would be appropriate to proceed to conduct an inquiry. However, in view of the contents of the medical reports, some of which I will outline, and the approach that has been outlined by the Crown to the future progress of the matter, I consider it is appropriate to determine that an inquiry is no longer necessary. In particular, the material indicates there is no issue as to Mr Watt's fitness to participate, in the sense discussed in R v Presser [1958] VR 45 ("Presser"), in a trial of the anticipated length. Of course, if the nature of the trial and its potential length should change in any material way the matter may then need to be readdressed.