HAMILL J: On 21 June 2019, after a hearing that took place between 20 and 22 May 2019, I found Billy Krey unfit to be tried on a charge of murder: R v Billy Krey [2019] NSWSC 762. In accordance with the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) ("the Act"), the matter was referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). Billy was remanded in custody until the determination of the Tribunal pursuant to s 16 of the Act.
On 27 September 2019 the Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether Billy remained unfit to be tried. The Tribunal held, "with considerable reservations":
"On the balance of probabilities, Mr Krey has become fit to be tried; he has mental illnesses, namely substance abuse disorder, in remission, and complex post-traumatic stress disorder".
As my previous judgment and the reasons of the Tribunal demonstrate, Billy's main problem in relation to his fitness to be tried concerns his ability or capacity to follow the course of proceedings and to understand what is going on in court. Those issues arise from his intellectual disability and his severe verbal and short-term memory problems. He would also have difficulty understanding any complex expert evidence and would "have substantial difficulties in engaging in the trial process, and giving instructions as the trial progressed". [1] He would be at a substantial disadvantage if he was called to give evidence in his trial or on any voir dire hearing, although there is no real issue that he would be able to give evidence.
At the time of the hearing before me in May of last year, four experts were called to give evidence. Dr Allnutt, a psychiatrist, was of the opinion that Billy was fit to be tried. However, in relation to the cognitive impairment manifesting in his intellectual disability and memory problems, Dr Allnutt preferred to defer to the opinions of the psychologists or neuropsychologists. Dr Nielssen was of the opposite view. In other words, he was of the opinion that Billy was unfit to be tried. An opinion on the fitness issue provided by a neuropsychologist, Dr Pulman, was not relied upon by the prosecution because that expert did not address the "Presser criteria" (R v Presser [1958] VR 45) relevant to a determination of whether an accused person is fit or unfit to be tried. The critical witness in the case was Dr Molly Schafer, a neuropsychologist whose evidence I found to be compelling. She had conducted substantial neuropsychological testing on Billy and gave detailed evidence as to his capacity to engage in the trial process. Her opinion was that Billy was not fit to be tried at that time. Some detail of Dr Schafer's evidence is set out in my earlier judgment.
After Billy was remanded in custody pending further proceedings under the Act he came under the care of a Dr White. While there was no significant change, if any, in Billy's intellectual capacity he responded well to the care and treatment of Dr White. Dr White provided a report to the Tribunal in which he expressed the opinion that, by the time of the Tribunal hearing in late September 2019, Billy was fit to be tried. This opinion was conditional upon the trial court taking particular measures to assist Billy to engage in the court process. This included taking regular breaks to enable Billy to have more time with his lawyers and to allow him to understand the substantial effect of the evidence being given against him. Dr White expressed concern that the stress of the court process may result in Billy's condition deteriorating, but even then, Dr White thought Billy's condition:
"...would be manageable and I would not think that these concerns would be likely to impair him to such an extent that it makes him unfit to be tried."
The reasons of the Tribunal indicated that the Tribunal members had lengthy conversations with Billy as part of the process under which they made their assessment pursuant to s 16 of the Act. The Tribunal said this:
"It was clear that Mr Krey had short term memory problems. But the Tribunal members, albeit with considerable reservations, concluded that Mr Krey would be able to manage during a trial so long as the trial is conducted with sufficient breaks to permit his lawyers to explain the proceedings, to ensure he understands what is happening, to remind him of the evidence which has been given, and to allow him to give meaningful instructions."
The Tribunal acknowledged that Billy would be at a significant disadvantage if called to give evidence but noted that those disadvantages could be explained to the tribunal of fact by the calling of expert evidence as to his psychological and psychiatric disabilities. I made similar observations in my earlier judgment.
In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal notified the Court of its finding that Billy was fit to be tried and the matter was listed before me to make a further determination as to his fitness to be tried. The same three experts who provided admissible opinions on the question of fitness at the previous fitness hearing provided updated reports and gave brief oral evidence at the current hearing, which has just concluded. On this occasion all three experts agreed that Billy's condition had improved to such an extent that he was now fit to be tried. At least that was their opinion, and each of them - in various ways and to various degrees - addressed the relevant criteria from the Victorian case of Presser, which are set out in my earlier judgment and in particular are addressed from [49] to [58] of that judgment.
The history provided by Dr Allnutt of his most recent interview with Billy included the following narrative:
"The accused had remained incarcerated since I last saw him. He was aged 21 on this occasion. He was taking Seroquel and an antidepressant (he could not recall the name).
He said he was charged with 'murder'. He said he was going to plead not guilty because he did not mean to stab or kill the deceased.
He understood not guilty to mean 'I am not guilty of that charge'. He understood guilty to mean 'that I am guilty, that I did what they charge says', 'I did what happened'. His lawyer's role was 'to help me as much as possible, help me to get manslaughter', 'to get me a downgrade of charge'. The prosecution he said, 'they try to see what I am, guilty or not guilty', they were 'against me'.
A judge 'reads all the paperwork, sees what happens and sees if I'm guilty or not'. When I asked him who else did this, he said 'the jury, they say if I'm guilty or not', 'they make a decision'. He said the jury came from 'people off the streets', he said that they were 'random'. He told me there were 12 people on the jury and 'you can take two off which you don't think's right'.
Evidence was 'what happened, to see if I'm guilty'. When I asked him for examples, he said 'like paperwork, the Judge has to read it', 'a weapon and witnesses', 'stuff like that'. An oath was a promise to tell the truth and the consequences of not doing so could be that he would be charged.
He understood the consequence of a finding of not guilty to be 'to a different charge with manslaughter'. He told me that he was hoping to get manslaughter. He understood that if he was found guilty of murder he would stay in jail for a while and if manslaughter he would get a 'lesser charge', still stay in jail, but not as long as murder."
Dr Allnutt concluded that Billy was fit to be tried, notwithstanding the obvious intellectual difficulties or disability and the memory problems that he has. As he did last year, Dr Allnutt deferred to the opinion of the neuropsychologist when it came to those difficulties.
Dr Olav Nielssen provided a helpful updated report and came to the following conclusion:
"Based on the further information that is available, I now agree that Mr Krey is on balance fit for trial, as he was consistent in his account of how he intended to respond to the charge of murder, demonstrated a basic understanding of the procedure followed in court, including the composition and role of a jury, and was assessed to be able to understand legal advice given to him in simple terms and provide reliable instructions based on his comprehension of that advice. I believe he would also be able to understand the general meaning of what was said once it had been explained to him by his legal representatives."
Dr Schafer's evidence was again, on my assessment, the most significant evidence in the case. She provided an updated report dated 9 January 2020 and gave evidence at the hearing this morning. Her report concluded at [5.5]:
"Due to the above factors, Mr Krey was possibly in a more receptive state to comprehend trial proceedings. Based on his responses to the Presser Criteria, I have changed my opinion regarding his fitness to stand trial. I believe he is currently fit to stand trial if the conditions determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal are put in place and he is accompanied throughout the court proceedings by a support person from the Intellectual Disability Rights Service."
At the hearing before me Dr Schafer was asked questions about some of the evidence that she gave last year at transcript pages 64 and 65, which is set out in my earlier judgment at [42]. Dr Schafer gave evidence of five tasks in three categories that had been subject to the neuropsychological testing she carried out. In respect of one, but only one, of those tasks Billy demonstrated "significant improvement". That was in relation to his immediate memory recall. As Dr Schafer explained it, that test involved reading a short story to Billy, and by short I mean a story of one to two minutes duration, and then asking him to recall salient parts of the story. As I say, there was a strong improvement in his performance in relation to that task.
However, a related task involved what was described as delayed structured verbal memory recall. As I understood Dr Schafer's evidence, this involved the same story being read to Billy and him being asked to recall its details after a passage of time of approximately 20 minutes during which other things were taking place. In other words, there were distractions during the 20 minute interval between the story being read and the subject being asked questions about it. In that regard his performance remained very poor, such that his delayed recall was assessed as being impaired. That is, self-evidently, a highly relevant consideration in the context of a criminal trial. What it means is that if evidence is given over any length of time and then there is any significant delay before his lawyers get a chance to ask him about it, Billy will have little or no memory of the evidence. On the other hand, the lawyers would be in a position to remind him of that evidence and to ask him, immediately after reminding him, of his instructions where those instructions were required.
Dr Schafer in her most recent report hypothesised that the improvement in his performance may be explained by a number of factors. What she said at [5.4] was:
"Mr Krey's comprehension of trial proceedings improved from his assessment 15 months ago. Although his cognitive performance showed no overall improvement, in my opinion there are two possible explanations for his improved fitness. His mother's unexpected death in late July 2018 most likely had an impact on his mental health and possibly on his performance during the assessment in early September 2018. Secondly, his time in the mental health unit in Hamden under Dr White's care may have had an impact on his functioning. Dr White indicated Mr Krey's medication was changed and Mr Krey noted that he saw Dr White on several occasions. Treatment effects as well as possible instruction from Dr White on the court process could have had a combined positive impact on Mr Krey's fitness."
The deficits which are significant in Mr Krey's memory appear largely to be in terms of information conveyed to him verbally. He is not considered to be "at the impaired level" when it comes to recall of events that actually happened, [2] and it does appear that in various contexts Mr Krey has been able to provide information, either to doctors or police or lawyers as to the events which give rise to the charge that he faces in this Court. The prosecution case for murder, the likely issues and the anticipated length of the trial were set out at [5]-[18] of my judgment on the last occasion:
"The Prosecution Case
5. On the fitness hearing, the prosecution case statement was tendered. The narrative that follows is a short summary of the allegations the prosecution makes against Billy.
6. The prosecution alleges that Billy murdered his neighbour (Mr Ioakima Sini) by stabbing him multiple times. The incident happened on the afternoon of 15 July 2017 at Whalan in western Sydney. It started with an argument between Mr Krey and his mother. In the course of that argument, Billy shouted at his mother 'I should slash your fucking throat … I am sick of you treating me like shit'. His girlfriend tried to intervene but Billy pushed her away. His mother, 8 year old brother and girlfriend then left the townhouse. Mr Sini asked if they were okay and the mother said not to worry, that Billy had just 'woken up with the shits'. Mr Sini went to the door of the house but Billy did not answer and Mr Sini walked away. Billy left the townhouse by the back door and then came around to the front of the premises.
7. There was a confrontation between Billy and Mr Sini in the front yard. Mr Sini said 'why hit women Billy?' Billy pulled out a knife and stabbed Mr Sini to the left torso and chest. Mr Sini fell to the ground. Billy continued to stab Mr Sini while he was on the ground. There are a number of witnesses to this incident. Neighbours called an ambulance. Mr Sini was found to be dead at the scene. He had suffered twelve stab wounds over his torso and abdomen, left side of his face and left arm. Two of the wounds caused severe injury. They penetrated his heart, his left and right lung, his right kidney and his liver. A pathologist determined that the cause of death was multiple stab wounds.
8. Billy ran to his grandfather's house. He told his grandfather that he got into a big fight and 'I think I've hurt him pretty bad'. His grandfather saw blood on Billy's hands, feet, face and neck, and on his clothing. He put the clothes into the washing machine and told Billy to have a shower to wash the blood off. Police arrived at the grandfather's house about 40 minutes later. Billy tried to run away but was arrested in the backyard. He has been in custody since then.
9. Billy was interviewed by police twice. The police must have recognised that Billy had some difficulties because they told him they would get him a support person. Even so, the first interview was conducted without a support person. In the first interview, Billy told the police that he had 'stabbed Kimmer about an hour ago', that he didn't know why he stabbed him and that he had 'blanked out'. In the second interview, he told the police officers that he woke up in a bad mood, got annoyed with his mother and had an argument with her. She left. He went outside and got the knife from the front yard and put it in his pants. He went for a walk and when he came back Kimmer said something about an 'f'n dog' and something that ticked him off. Then 'everything just went black'. After he went back to normal 'I seen this guy with two, like bars in his hand'. This was his neighbour from across the road. He saw there was blood on his hand and on the knife. He didn't see Kimmer and he started to run. He dropped the knife and went to his grandfather's house and told him he thought he had stabbed somebody.
10. The prosecution case statement says that the prosecution will allege that Billy stabbed Mr Sini with the intention to kill him, or to inflict grievous bodily harm, or that he did so with reckless indifference to human life.
Issues at the trial
11. It is not possible to predict with any certainty the issues that will arise at the trial. At first blush, it is a relatively simple case. However, on closer examination, there are number of issues that are likely to arise that have some complexity.
12. An issue that may well arise concerns the admissibility of the interviews with police. Given Billy's intellectual disability, there may be a number of bases upon which it could be contended that one or other or both of the interviews ought not to be excluded from the evidence at the trial.
13. Another issue will concern precisely what happened and the credibility of the witnesses to be called by the prosecution to give eye-witness accounts of the incident.
14. A third issue concerns intention. While the first two bases upon which the prosecution will put its case are conceptually straightforward, there would be some complexity if the prosecution proceeds on the basis of reckless indifference.
15. Another issue that is likely to arise is the issue of substantial impairment. Dr Allnutt, the psychiatrist called by the prosecution on the fitness hearing, provided an opinion that suggested that the defence may be open to the accused. [2] It might be expected that the same expert witnesses who gave evidence on the fitness hearing, and perhaps more, would be called on this issue.
16. Along with the psychiatric and psychological evidence, there is likely to be an amount of expert evidence of a forensic kind.
Length of the trial
17. A witness list tendered on the fitness hearing suggests there are over 60 witnesses. I was told that there are potentially 40 witnesses to be called in the trial, although one would expect this number to be reduced further as the lawyers refine the true issues in the case and work out what is, and is not, in dispute.
18. The trial has an estimate of three weeks but I was told that this estimate was based on a trial 'without difficulties'. The kind of support that Billy would need if the trial proceeds, and the number of breaks that would need to be taken, led the prosecutor to revise that estimate to 'at least six' weeks."
There will be, as best as counsel can anticipate at this stage, a number of issues to be litigated. A preliminary issue is likely to concern the admissibility or otherwise of two interviews that Billy made with police, one of which was conducted in the absence of a support person, in spite of the fact that it seems to have been clear to the police, based on what they said at the time, that a support person may have been appropriate. There may be other issues surrounding the fairness and admissibility of those interviews. That may require Billy to give evidence on the voir dire and he would be, as I assess it, under some disadvantage if called upon to give evidence. However, those disadvantages would be apparent to the tribunal of law making the determination as to admissibility, that is to say the trial Judge, and the disadvantages, I think, can be met with appropriate evidence as to the reasons why he would have difficulty giving evidence.
Other issues likely to arise at trial will be what actually happened based on the evidence of eyewitnesses, the intention that Billy had (assuming the tribunal of fact came to the conclusion that he committed the act causing death, a matter that does not appear to be in dispute), and whether, based on the reports of Dr Allnutt and Dr Nielssen, Billy's liability for homicide should be reduced from murder to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment.
I cannot say that the trial would be a simple one. It certainly would not be a simple one for someone with Billy's cognitive impairments. On the other hand, it is not a particularly complex case. It does not appear there will be enormous amounts of expert evidence that would make it impossible for Billy to follow, if given assistance both with a support person, as contemplated by Dr Schafer, and with the aid of a compassionate and empathetic solicitor engaging with him during the many breaks that will be necessary if the trial is to proceed at all.
In addition to the evidence of the revised and updated opinions of the three experts who gave admissible evidence on the issue last time, and the reasons of the Tribunal, another piece of evidence that demonstrates relevant changes in Billy's fitness to stand trial is the report of Dr White. As has been seen from Dr Schafer's report it appears that Billy's engagement with Dr White has had a positive impact on him and on some of the critical issues relevant to whether he is now fit to stand trial.
A report of Dr White, which obviously played an important role in the Tribunal's decision, was tendered in the proceedings before me as Exhibit B. I have taken it into account in reaching my conclusion. On the ultimate issue Dr White formed the view that Billy was fit to be tried. His findings in that regard are set out towards the end of the report when the doctor said:
"In my opinion Mr Krey shows understanding with what he is charged with and has capacity to plead to the charge. He showed capacity to understand the relevant issues around murder and manslaughter and expressed his view that he is guilty of manslaughter but not murder. He would be able to exercise his right to challenge jurors and understands the general nature of proceedings.
He may require some assistance from the court (regular breaks and more time to talk to his lawyers) but, in my opinion, he has capacity to understand the substantial effect of evidence given against him. He should be able to make his defence or answer the charge and he has capacity to instruct counsel and give his version of events, as far as he can remember them."
He concluded:
"In my opinion, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Krey is fit to be tried."
The situation has changed significantly since the last fitness hearing. Although Billy remains vulnerable and has an intellectual disability and substantial deficiency in his memory capacity (particularly his verbal and delayed memory capacity), his overall condition appears to have improved. While his intellectual disability is unlikely ever to improve to a great extent, according to the opinions of Dr White and (implicitly, at least) Dr Schafer, the matters referred to by Dr Schafer as possibly affecting the earlier assessment and the care he has received whilst on remand with Dr White has meant that the concerns I had last year in relation to his capacity to engage in the trial process (to provide his lawyers with instructions and to follow the evidence) have been ameliorated to a significant extent.
Mr Scragg, who appears for Billy on the fitness hearing, submitted that notwithstanding the various improvements and the opinions of the experts I would remain of the view that Billy is unfit to be tried. I have to say I accept Mr Scragg's submissions that it is a case that is greatly troubling in terms of determining the fitness issue.
The improvements that have been made since last year may well be transient. By way of example, one of Dr Schafer's explanations for the possible improvement is that Billy's performance last year under testing may have been adversely affected by the stress surrounding the death of his mother not too long before those assessments were undertaken. The likelihood is that there will be a great deal of stress surrounding the trial proceedings. Dr White, in his report, acknowledges this after stating the conclusion that Billy is fit to be tried:
"It is possible that the stress of court will make his condition deteriorate and he may become more stressed and anxious. In my opinion this would be manageable and I would not think that these concerns would be likely to impair him to such an extent that it makes him unfit to be tried."
The point is that Dr White acknowledges that the stress of the trial may mean Billy's condition deteriorates around the time of the trial or indeed during the currency of the trial.
Another factor relevant to an assessment of whether Billy is now fit is the length of the trial. The parties again provided an estimate of three weeks for this trial, if it ran its ordinary course, but given the likely delays resulting from the issues that Billy has, the estimate is more likely to be six weeks. That is a very long time for a person in his condition to try to focus and concentrate. But, again, these are things that may be able to be dealt with by way of regular and frequent adjournments.
I now turn my mind to the particular criteria referred to and generally described as the "Presser criteria": [3]
1. I am satisfied that Billy understands what it is that he is charged with. He has always shown an understanding, perhaps rudimentary, of the fact that he is charged with murder and has also understood the possible pleas available to him. In the evidence last year and again in the evidence given before me on this hearing he has expressed an understanding that he may be able either to plead guilty to a manslaughter charge or have the murder charged reduced to manslaughter at trial. While I doubt he understands the nuance of the defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), he does seem to understand that liability can be reduced as a result of the issues that he has.
2. Billy is capable of understanding what he is charged with and he is able to plead to the charge.
3. The evidence on the question of his ability to exercise his right to challenge jurors was very thin on the ground last year, but there is more this year. It is not particularly persuasive on the issue of whether he understands precisely the way in which a jury is empanelled. He has provided each of the experts with his understanding of what a jury is and does. He has referred to them as "random", which is correct. He said on one occasion he could challenge one of them, on another occasion he could challenge two of them. As discussed with counsel, that aspect of the Presser test is something that I wonder about. I wonder whether it really is a matter that would ever, on its own, give rise to a finding that a person is unfit to be tried. I suppose if a person was deluded and had no real clue what was going on it may be that they could not engage in that part of the trial process. However, the reality in the year 2020 is that counsel generally undertakes the role of challenging jurors. As Mr Scragg accepted, apart from making enquiries as to whether the accused knows somebody on the jury, generally counsel makes the forensic decisions, not to say wild guesses, involved in challenging jurors on a peremptory basis. I am satisfied that Billy has sufficient understanding of the process and sufficient cognitive ability to engage in the process of challenging jurors to the extent necessary.
4. I am satisfied that Billy has a general understanding of the nature of the proceedings and that it is an enquiry as to whether he did what he is charged with. He said as much virtually in those terms when asked about it by the various experts on this occasion and indeed on the last occasion.
5. The real issue last year was stated at [54] of my judgment and, at that stage, I was positively satisfied that Billy would not be able to follow the course of the proceedings in any meaningful way. Based on the revised opinions of the experts; the additional opinion of Dr White; the improvements that he has shown generally under the care of Dr White; and the more recent testing undertaken by Dr Schafer, particularly concerning his immediate verbal recall, I am now satisfied that he would be able to follow the course of proceedings and understand what is going on in court generally. On the last occasion I noted my own observations that Billy did not appear to have much of an idea of what was going on during the course of the fitness hearing. The fitness hearing this year has been much shorter. I cannot say that I have come to any positive conclusion one way or the other based on watching him over the course of the few hours that we have been in court together. The evidence of the experts does satisfy me that he could follow the course of proceedings and understand what is going on in court. I am satisfied that Billy would understand the substantial effect of the evidence that will be given against him. I doubt that he would understand any particularly complex expert evidence.
6. I accept that Billy would be under some disadvantage, particularly if there is an issue of substantial impairment or intent involving evidence given by experts, who may be recalling or recounting what Billy said to them. The likelihood is based on the evidence of Dr Schafer and her testing that he would have very scant memory of what he said to them in the course of any interview that they had.
7. I am satisfied that Billy would be able to give instructions to his lawyers and I suspect, based on the recorded interviews and histories provided to the experts, that he may already have done so in relation to what actually happened in relation to the incident giving rise to the charges. In other words, I think he could give instructions in relation to what happened on the day of the killing based on his memory of events, which Dr Schafer says is not at an "impaired level". I think he would have real difficulties challenging the evidence given by prosecution witnesses, unless he is provided with substantial support, as discussed by Dr Schafer, and his lawyers are fastidious in ensuring there are sufficient breaks to enable them to explain to him the evidence that has been given and summarise it in simpler terms.
8. As I was last year, I remain concerned that he would be under a substantial disadvantage if he was called to give evidence in his trial. However, that is not a unique situation and it is not a sufficient disadvantage to conclude that he is unable to make his defence or answer the charge. I am satisfied that he could do so. As I contemplated last year and as the Mental Health Review Tribunal noted, any real disadvantage that Billy suffers in giving evidence, if that is the election that is made, could be explained to the tribunal of fact by reference to either agreed facts as to his intellectual disability or expert evidence on that issue. In any event, it is likely to be patent to either a jury or a judge sitting alone.
I have taken into account the length of the trial, the likely complexity of the trial and the opinions both of Dr Schafer and Dr White that there is a risk that when the case comes on this issue may arise again. The stress of the trial may exacerbate his condition as it seems it did with the death of his mother before the testing last year; and would mean that whilst he is now fit he may not be fit at that time.
Again, that is not unique. I cannot make a decision prospectively as to how he will be when the trial will be listed. I have no idea when that will be although I will recommend that the case receives some priority given the matters raised on the fitness issue and the delays to which the case has already been subject. If it becomes an issue, in accordance with the Act, it is a matter that can be raised by the trial Judge, by the Prosecutor, or by a defence counsel. Then the issue would have to be ventilated and determined based on the evidence and facts then in existence. I have to make the decision based on the evidence before me today and on my understanding and findings as to Billy's capacity right now.
Consistent with the findings that I have just made concerning the various Presser criteria and taking into account the complexity and length of this trial I am satisfied that Billy Krey is now fit to be tried. However, as each of the experts has indicated, and reflective of the "considerable reservations" expressed by the Tribunal, the trial will need to be conducted in a way that takes into account Billy's substantial disadvantages and disabilities. His legal representatives will need to be most attentive to his needs and to seek adjournments at regular, probably frequent, intervals to ensure their client is sufficiently engaged in the process to be able to give proper instructions and ultimately to receive a fair hearing.
It may also be necessary, as Dr Schafer has indicated, for Billy to have a support person with him in the dock as he has had in both of the fitness hearings that have been conducted before me. It may also be necessary for his solicitors to sit with him in or near the dock. Or perhaps he can be allowed sit outside of the dock to give him greater access to his legal representatives: cf R v Lelikan [2018] NSWSC 1933 a judgment with which I respectfully agree. All of those things are practical matters within the power of the trial Judge to control and facilitate.
With those caveats in mind, all of which should be brought to the attention of both the list Judge and the trial Judge, I am satisfied the following orders should be made:
1. Billy Krey is fit to be tried.
2. The matter will be listed in the arraignment list before the Criminal List Judge on Friday, 20 March 2020.
3. I recommend that Mr Krey remain in the Hamden area of the MRRC for the period of his remand.
4. Insofar as the Court can accommodate it, I recommend that the trial be listed with priority.
5. I strongly recommend that the Legal Aid Commission consider favourably any application by Mr Krey's lawyers for substantially increased preparation time.
6. I recommend that the Court make arrangements for "real time" transcription at Mr Krey's trial.
[2]
Endnotes
Finding on Fitness by Mental Health Review Tribunal p 6.
Transcript (5 March 2020) pp 23-24.
See Presser (supra) and Kesavarajah v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 230; [1994] HCA 41.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 09 March 2020