Australia, Sept. 8 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 7:

1. By summons filed on 3 June 2025 the plaintiff claims an order for extension of the defendant's status as a forensic patient under the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the Forensic Provisions Act). The defendant is represented by a tutor and opposes the summons. The proceedings came before me on 28 July 2025 for a preliminary hearing pursuant to s 126 of the Act. At that hearing the plaintiff sought an order for the appointment of suitably qualified experts to examine the defendant and furnish reports to the Court. Pursuant to s 130 the plaintiff sought an interim extension of the defendant's status as a forensic patient pending final hearing the summons. These are my reasons for determination of those preliminary applications adversely to the plaintiff and for a consequential order dismissing the summons.

Prosecution of the defendant leading to detention as a forensic patient

2. By force of s 72(1)(b) of the Forensic Provisions Act, one category of forensic patient is a person for whom a limiting term has been fixed after a special hearing and who has thereafter been released from custody under an order made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Between 1 January 2015 and 21 March 2020, when the defendant was between 17 and 20 years of age, he committed offences of indecent assault, sexual touching and digital sexual intercourse against two of his female cousins. One of the girls was aged approximately 7 years and the other was between 10 and 12 years. On 22 May 2020 the complainants informed a relative of what had occurred. The defendant was confronted by the relatives and at their insistence he reported his misconduct to police soon after. He made admissions to police and was charged with several offences in late May 2020. He was released to bail.

3. On 11 August 2021 there was a hearing before English DCJ pursuant to s 42 of the Forensic Provisions Act, at the conclusion of which the defendant was found unfit to be tried on the charges laid against him. Her Honour received a report dated 6 April 2021 from Dr K Seidler, psychologist, who had administered the Weschler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. The results showed that the defendant's verbal intellectual skills were in the range of a Moderate Intellectual Disability, below 99.9% of his aged peers. His non-verbal or performance abilities were measured at the 18th percentile, being in the Low Average range. Such a wide divergence of results between the two faculties is apparently highly unusual, with the consequence that calculation of an overall intelligence quotient could not be carried out meaningfully. In a report dated 22 July 2021 Dr K Eagle accepted the results of Dr Seidler's testing. She said that the defendant's cognitive impairment appeared to be developmental in aetiology and permanent.

4. In August 2022 a special hearing was conducted before Coleman SC DCJ, as required by ss 55 and 56 of the Act. On 29 September 2022 his Honour delivered a verdict, in accordance with s 59(1)(c), that on the limited evidence available the defendant had committed 13 sexual offences against the two complainants, as charged. On 8 December 2022, pursuant to s 63(2), his Honour nominated limiting terms for each of the matters. The terms were sequenced in a way that gave rise to an overall effective limiting term of 2 years and 9 months, commencing on 8 December 2022 and expiring on 7 September 2025. Limiting terms are not subject to non-parole periods: s 64(2)(b).

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19881b73906f29a1c86889e9)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.