Australia, May 25 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on April 24:

1. The accused Andre Parkes (also known as 'Drey' or 'Dre') is charged with four offences as follows: -

Count 1: Break and enter into a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein in circumstances of special aggravation, contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act);

Count 2: Robbery armed with an offensive weapon in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act;

Count 3: Robbery in company, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act; and

Count 4: Attempt to discharge a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act.

2. All the offences were alleged to have been committed during an incident commonly referred to as a home invasion.

3. Mr Dion Carnell, solicitor advocate appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Ms Amarande Chauvet appeared on behalf of the accused.

4. On 5 February 2024, Her Honour Judge Herbert found that the accused was not fit to be tried due to a mental health impairment pursuant to s 36 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (MHCIFP Act). Further Her Honour was satisfied that the accused would not become fit to be tried for the relevant offences pursuant to s 53 of the MHCIFP Act.

5. The accused is prosecuted by way of special hearing in accordance with the procedure provided in s 56 of the MHCIFP Act.

6. On 7 April 2025 the accused was arraigned before me with respect to the offences, and was taken to have pleaded not guilty pursuant to s 56(5) of the MHCIFP Act. This special hearing is to be conducted as nearly as possible as if it were a trial in criminal proceedings (s 56(1)), although the Court may, if it thinks appropriate, modify the court processes to facilitate the effective participation by the accused in the special hearing (s 56(1)). The accused may raise any defence that could properly be raised if the special hearing were an ordinary trial of criminal proceedings (s 56(6)) and the accused is entitled to give evidence (s 56(7))

7. The trial is by judge alone, there being no election contemplated by s 56(9) of the MHCIFP Act. The Court is to determine the guilt of the accused with respect to each count on the indictment in accordance with s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (CP Act).

General directions

8. In compliance with s 133(2) and (3) of the CP Act, and as required by the decision of the High Court in Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250, I remind myself of the following principles of law.

9. It is my duty and responsibility to consider whether the accused is "guilty" or "not guilty" of the charges and return my verdict according to the evidence. I have taken into account the submissions on behalf of the Crown and counsel for the accused. However, I note that in no sense are those submissions evidence in the trial.

10. I must direct myself on the onus of proof. This is a very important direction. This is a criminal trial of the most serious nature and the burden of proof of guilt of the accused is placed on the Crown. The onus rests upon the Crown in respect of every element of the charges. There is no onus of proof on the accused at all. It is not for the accused to prove his innocence but for the Crown to prove his guilt and to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. I remind myself that suspicion is not a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1967b5b695a46200642e2c1d)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.