R v Bugmy (No 3)

File Number(s): 2023/233561

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

1. William David Bugmy was arrested on 22 July 2023 and charged with the murder of Talbot Ward at Newtown the previous day.

2. On 30 January 2025 he was committed for trial in this Court, but on 21 May 2025 was found unfit to be tried pursuant to Pt 4 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) [1] by Cavanagh J. His Honour also found Mr Bugmy would not become fit within the ensuing 12 months: R v Bugmy [2025] NSWSC 497.

3. Upon the Director of Public Prosecutions advising the Court pursuant to s 53 that it was proposed to proceed with the matter, Hamill J listed the matter for special hearing pursuant to Pt 4 Div 3 on 2 February 2026.

4. No election was made for a jury and so the matter proceeded by judge alone pursuant to s 56(9).

5. The matter might have proceeded pursuant to the more expedient procedure provided by s 31 but for the Crown declining to agree that the proposed evidence established the defence of mental health impairment. As to that issue, see R v Bugmy (No 2) [2026] NSWSC 70.

Nature of a special hearing

6. Section 54 describes what a special hearing is:

In this Act, a special hearing is a hearing for the purpose of ensuring, despite the unfitness of the defendant to be tried in accordance with the normal procedures, that the defendant is acquitted unless it can be proved to the required criminal standard of proof that, on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged, or another offence available as an alternative to the offence charged.

7. A person may be unfit to be tried on any ground the court may consider, including those described in s 36(1) of the Act:

(1) For the purposes of proceedings to which this Part applies, a person is taken to be unfit to be tried for an offence if the person, because the person has a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, or both, or for another reason, cannot do one or more of the following—

(a) understand the offence the subject of the proceedings,

(b) plead to the charge,

(c) exercise the right to challenge jurors,

(d) understand generally the nature of the proceedings as an inquiry into whether the person committed the offence with which the person is charged,

(e) follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense,

(f) understand the substantial effect of any evidence given against the person,

(g) make a defence or answer to the charge,

(h) instruct the person’s legal representative so as to mount a defence and provide the person’s version of the facts to that legal representative and to the court if necessary,

(i) decide what defence the person will rely on and make that decision known to the person’s legal representative and the court.

8. The finding of unfitness made by Cavanagh J was for the following reasons:

[59] Both experts consider the defendant unfit to stand trial. Having regard to their opinions and all of the evidence I am satisfied that, because of both a mental health impairment and a cognitive impairment, the defendant:

(1) cannot plead to the charge against him;

(2) is not able to exercise the right to challenge jurors;

(3) could not follow the course of proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense; and

(4) could not properly instruct his legal representatives to mount a defence and provide his version of events to his legal representatives.

9. Section 56 makes various provisions for the procedure at a special hearing. They include the following:

(a) It is to be conducted as nearly as possible as if it were a trial of criminal proceedings (s 56(1)). (b) Court processes may be modified, if appropriate, to facilitate effective participation by the accused (s 56(2)). (c) The accused must be represented (and in this case he was) unless the court otherwise allows, and the fact the accused is unfit is not to be presumed to be an impediment to representation (s 56(3)-(4)). (d) The accused is taken to have pleaded not guilty to the charge (s 56(5)). (e) The accused may raise any defence that could properly be raised if the hearing were an ordinary trial of criminal proceedings (s 56(6)). (f) The accused is entitled to give evidence (s 56(7)).

10. If there was a jury it would be necessary to explain certain matters pursuant to s 56(11). Although that provision does not apply in a judge-alone hearing (s 6), there are some matters I note in particular.

11. The verdicts that may be delivered at a special hearing pursuant to s 59(1) are:

(a) not guilty of the offence charged,

(b) a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible,

(c) that on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed the offence charged,

(d) that on the limited evidence available, the defendant committed an offence available as an alternative to the offence charged.

12. The legal and practical consequences of these verdicts are described in ss 60-63. Verdicts of not guilty would have the consequence that the accused would be discharged and no longer held in custody in respect of the present charge. If a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is returned, the Court would proceed to make such orders as are appropriate under s 33 of the Act:

33 Effect of special verdict

(1) On the return of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible, the court may make one or more of the following orders—

(a) an order that the defendant be remanded in custody until a further order is made under this section,

(b) an order that the defendant be detained in the place and manner that the court thinks fit until released by due process of law,

(c) an order for the unconditional or conditional release of the defendant from custody,

(d) other orders that the court thinks appropriate.

(2) Before making an order for the release of a defendant, the court may request a report by a forensic psychiatrist or other person of a class prescribed by the regulations, who is not currently involved in treating the defendant, as to the condition of the defendant and whether the release of the defendant is likely to seriously endanger the safety of the defendant or any member of the public.

(3) The court must not make an order for the release of a defendant unless it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the safety of the defendant or any member of the public will not be seriously endangered by the defendant’s release.

13. Pursuant to ss 34 and 67, the accused would then necessarily be referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (unless he were to be unconditionally released).

The evidence concerning the death of Talbot Ward

14. This special hearing is concerned with events that occurred at the home of Talbot Ward in a unit complex in Newtown in the early evening of Friday 21 July 2023. Mr Julian Gold was an eyewitness. Given there is no dispute about his evidence as to critical matters, it is unnecessary to refer to the entirety of his evidence, nor to evidence concerning him.

15. Mr Gold said he knew Mr Ward for around four years after having met him through mutual friends. He also knew the accused, but only for about two or three weeks prior to the incident in question.

16. On 21 July 2023 Mr Gold was in Glebe with his girlfriend and they had an argument. At about 6pm he decided to go for a walk and visit Mr Ward. Through text messages he became aware that Mr Ward was intending to go out. It was his birthday. Mr Gold arrived at Mr Ward’s unit complex just before 7pm. The accused was already present.

17. Mr Gold sat on a footstool to the right of the single lounge chair in which Mr Ward was seated. The accused was sitting on a two-seater couch on the left side of Mr Ward. The accused had a bag on the couch.

18. Mr Gold spoke with Mr Ward for about four or five minutes. The accused asked him several times to come and sit on the couch with him and ultimately Mr Gold did so. His evidence continued: [2]

So the minute my ‑ the minute my backside has touched the couch, Mr Bugmy leaned towards his bag and pulled something out and just ‑ it all happened so quickly. He's just gotten up and the next thing I knew he was on top of Talbot while he was sitting in his chair.

… everything happened so quickly. I've ‑ he was over the top of him. It looked as if he was hitting him but turns out he was stabbing him.

… As he's gone over to get near Talbot, he's slipped on some coins that were strum [sic – strewn?] across the floor. So he has more or less fallen on top of Talbot. That's what made me think it was he'd fallen by accident at first.

19. Mr Gold described the accused holding himself up with his left hand and using his other hand in a back and forward motion towards Mr Ward. During this activity Mr Ward somehow came off the chair and went to the floor. The accused “was still stabbing, making that arm motion”. [3] From where he was sitting, Mr Gold could not see whether there was anything in the accused’s hand.

20. Mr Gold estimated the event took 12 seconds or so, and there were between 20 to 30 thrusts of the accused’s hand, “I’d say about 27 times, 28 times”. [4] Mr Ward was lying on the floor screaming for the accused to stop. The accused said two or three times, “where’s the money?” as he was stabbing him, “while he was on the floor and he was over the top of him”. [5]

21. The accused’s demand concerning money suggests something that may have prompted him to act as he did. This should be considered along with the evidence of Ms Jodie Robinson, who lived with the accused, who said in her statement that the accused and the deceased “were fighting over money and drugs”. [6]

22. Mr Gold said that before he sat on the couch, he had asked Mr Ward how he had been. Mr Ward mentioned that he had been robbed a couple of weeks earlier. [7] He also said that just before the accused reached into his bag Mr Ward had asked him to get something from the kitchen and the accused replied, “Yeah, I can do that for you”. [8]

23. Mr Gold gave evidence of various things happening after the attack had ceased. They included him going to the front door to prop it open and returning to see the accused emerge from a bedroom with Mr Ward’s bag. He said, “Talbot always wore that bag when he was going out”. [9] Ms Robinson included in her statement that the accused came home that night with a “small square man bag that you wear with one strap on your shoulder” that he hadn’t left with. [10] There is no evidence as to what was in the bag.

24. Mr Gold told the accused to “get the fuck out”. [11] The accused ran out the door which Mr Gold then closed and returned to Mr Ward who was lying on the floor, holding his right shoulder. He asked Mr Gold to call an ambulance and not to leave him alone.

25. Mr Gold did leave Mr Ward. He left the apartment, made a call to triple-0 shortly after leaving the unit complex and then made his way to Glebe.

26. Counsel for the accused in her closing address took issue with three factual matters but otherwise did not impugn the evidence of Mr Gold. The first concerned his evidence of the accused reaching into his bag immediately before attacking the deceased whereas he had not said that to police. If his oral evidence were to be accepted, it could be inferred the accused had brought a knife in his bag which he used to stab the deceased. However, it is not disputed that there were other knives available in the immediate vicinity that could have been used in the attack. In the end, this issue is of no significance as there is no basis to find that the accused planned the attack or even previously gave thought to attacking Mr Ward. The attack was spontaneous and was carried out with a knife that was available somewhere nearby.

27. The second issue concerned the number of blows and stabs delivered by the accused. The reliability of witness testimony concerning traumatic events which occur quickly and unexpectedly usually needs to be assessed with caution. In respect of this issue, it can be accepted that the attack occurred over a short period and the number of blows or stabs is best assessed by the findings made in the post-mortem examination, as to which see below.

28. The third issue was whether the deceased was dragged or slid off the chair and onto the floor. This was deliberately omitted from the narrative above because whether it was one or the other is of no significance.

29. The post-mortem examination revealed that the cause of death was “stab wounds of the chest and abdomen”. [12] There were two stab wounds; one was to the right anterior chest wall which penetrated the heart and the other was to the upper anterior abdominal wall which penetrated the liver.

30. There were incised wounds to the third digits of each hand, consistent with defensive-type wounds. Other minor blunt force injuries, wounds, abrasions, and contusions were as follows: [13]

(a) a small abrasion, also referred to as a wound, to the forehead; (b) two contusions and two abrasions to the left mid-forearm; (c) puncture wound and associated contusion to the left hand; (d) two further contusions to the left hand; and (e) a small abrasion to the right lower leg.

31. Other evidence tendered by the Crown included various things tending to confirm Mr Gold’s evidence that it was the accused who stabbed the deceased. For example, there was evidence establishing the movements of Mr Gold before and after his visit to Mr Ward’s home, evidence of the accused’s DNA being on a knife found at the crime scene, and the deceased’s DNA being on pants apparently worn by the accused. Such evidence and the lack of dispute enable me to confidently accept Mr Gold’s evidence on the critical issue of whether the accused stabbed and killed the deceased.

Findings of fact

32. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused stabbed the deceased and thereby inflicted the two wounds which caused his death.

33. As the defence of mental health impairment has been raised from the outset of this special hearing, and I am satisfied that the actus reus elements of the offence have been established by the Crown, there is no need at this point to consider whether the Crown has established the mental element of the offence of murder (being an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm): Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28; R v Minani (2005) 63 NSWLR 490; [2005] NSWCCA 226 at [32].

The defence of mental health impairment

34. The defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment is described in the Act as follows:

28 Defence of mental health impairment or cognitive impairment

(1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if, at the time of carrying out the act constituting the offence, the person had a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment, or both, that had the effect that the person—

(a) did not know the nature and quality of the act, or

(b) did not know that the act was wrong (that is, the person could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong).

(2) The question of whether a defendant had a mental health impairment or a cognitive impairment, or both, that had that effect is a question of fact and is to be determined by the jury on the balance of probabilities.

(3) Until the contrary is proved, it is presumed that a defendant did not have a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, or both, that had that effect.

(4) In this Part, act includes—

(a) an omission, and

(b) a series of acts or omissions.

35. It is mental health impairment that is relevant in the present case. It is defined as follows:

4 Mental health impairment

(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has a mental health impairment if—

(a) the person has a temporary or ongoing disturbance of thought, mood, volition, perception or memory, and

(b) the disturbance would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and

(c) the disturbance impairs the emotional wellbeing, judgment or behaviour of the person.

(2) A mental health impairment may arise from any of the following disorders but may also arise for other reasons—

(a) an anxiety disorder,

(b) an affective disorder, including clinical depression and bipolar disorder,

(c) a psychotic disorder,

(d) a substance induced mental disorder that is not temporary.

(3) A person does not have a mental health impairment for the purposes of this Act if the person’s impairment is caused solely by—

(a) the temporary effect of ingesting a substance, or

(b) a substance use disorder.

36. The effect of s 28(2)-(3) is that it is for the defence to establish on the balance of probabilities that the accused had a mental health impairment (or cognitive impairment) such that the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that the act was wrong.

Evidence of mental health impairment

37. The Crown tendered reports by Dr Adam Martin, forensic psychiatrist, dated 22 November 2024 and 22 October 2025. Counsel for Mr Bugmy tendered reports by Dr Sathish Dayalan, forensic psychiatrist, dated 12 August 2024 and 27 January 2026.

38. There was evidence from a disability support worker who saw the accused earlier in the day of 21 July 2023, two people who saw him in the hours after the killing of Mr Ward, and body-worn video footage of the accused at the time of his arrest the following morning that is relevant to his mental state. On a lay view of what was described or depicted in that evidence, there is no doubt that Mr Bugmy was very disturbed and irrational in the period immediately before and after the event in question. That evidence was provided to the two experts and was factored into their assessments.

Expert opinions of Dr Martin and Dr Dayalan

Dr Martin

39. In his first report, Dr Martin summarised his general assessment of Mr Bugmy: [14]

… By way of background, he clearly has a complex presentation and multiple psychiatric diagnoses have been considered over may years. There has been consistent reporting of extreme psychosocial deprivation, witnessing of abuse and violence, exposure to alcohol from an early age, highly disordered behaviour, early contact with the criminal justice system, disrupted education and disrupted attachments, with generally highly unstable childhood, with subsequent “institutionalisation”, having been in detention for length periods since his teens and throughout his adult life. There has been early and protracted use of multiple substances, including apparently in the time leading up to the alleged offending. The available information points to long term and severe predisposition to emotional dysregulation, impulsivity and a tendency to acting out violently, in my view. The psychiatric interview was challenging owing to his style of presentation, which in my view reflected his complex presentation and a likely background of cognitive deficits [probably attributable to the effects of psychosocial deprivation, disrupted education, protracted use of substance and chronic mental illness]. He vaguely alluded to various psychotic phenomena such as hearing voices and paranoia although communication was difficult and he was generally inarticulate.

Overall, while there is likely to be debate about the exact psychiatric label(s) for his presentation, in my view, diagnoses are of schizophrenia, closely associated with the effects of long term methamphetamine use, on the background of personality disorder and complex posttraumatic stress disorder, problems with emotional dysregulation and the effects of psychosocial deprivation. Clearly, he has a diagnosis of substance use disorder which has obviously been closely associated with his general presentation.

40. Dr Martin set out his opinion as to the availability of the defence of mental health impairment in his second report: [15]

[16] I maintain my clinical impression around his presentation. In short, in my view, Mr Bugmy has chronic schizophrenia, substance use disorder and as previously noted, has a background of psychosocial deprivation. He presents self-reporting ongoing psychotic phenomena such as experience of hearing voices and paranoia. His presentation was consistent with chronic psychotic illness although with relative stability more recently, given regular medication and apparent abstinence from illicit drugs in a controlled environment.

[17] The available information strongly suggests that he was severely mentally disturbed at the time of the alleged offending, probably as a consequence of the above factors, including uncontrolled psychotic illness and sustained use of methamphetamine, as well as other substances. The motivation for the alleged offending is not absolutely clear. I formed the view that it was more likely than not that he was significantly disinhibited and aggressive as a consequence of uncontrolled mental illness complicated and associated with methamphetamine use. There is apparently some evidence from a neighbour, Kerry Forster, that Mr Bugmy had previously threatened the deceased with an axe. [16] According to witness Gold the alleged violence appears to have been outwardly unprovoked, and he is said to have shouted afterwards “where is the money, where is the money?” repeatedly. Mr Bugmy is alleged to have returned home holding a small, square man bag that he did not have when he left [paragraph 33] and to have said “turn the lights off, there’s police outside!” to witness Robinson. Mr Bugmy is described by witness Robinson as going into her bedroom and whispering things throughout the night and “pestering her”. He is said to have been sat on the bed with his pants down and to have told her that she was “perving on him” [paragraph 35]. A few hours later, a witness described Mr Bugmy as “acting strange”. He was huddled on the ground saying “help me I’m sick, help me” [paragraph 36]. When approached by the police the next morning, he was alleged to have been shouting “I’m not a paedophile. I didn’t rape my daughter” and to have screamed at witness Robinson “the police are charging me with rape. They’re saying I raped my kids”, before apparently grabbing photographs of his children, kissing the frame and yelling “I’m a rapist, I’m a rapist”. He was said to be holding two knives while yelling prior to his arrest. He then made statement to the effect of denial for the alleged offending but not knowing he had seen the deceased the night before and did not participate in a police interview.

41. After referring to certain content of the Crown Case Statement, Dr Martin continued: [17]

[18] The above summary of the Crown Case Statement is consistent with a picture of Mr Bugmy having a highly disturbed mental state in the context of a likely uncontrolled major mental illness [schizophrenia] and significantly complicated and exacerbated by sustained methamphetamine use, on a background of a history of poor emotional control and general instability.

[19] Regarding the issue of the defence of mental health impairment, I found the following:

[20] At the time of the alleged offending, he would fulfil definition of having “a mental health impairment” as set out in the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act 2020. That is, he had an ongoing disturbance of thought, mood and perception that would be regarded as significant for clinical diagnostic purposes, and that impaired his emotional wellbeing, judgement and behaviour. In my opinion, the mental health impairment arose from a psychotic disorder [schizophrenia]. Importantly, in my view, he did not have a mental health impairment for the purposes of this act “caused solely by the temporary effect of ingesting a substance or a substance use disorder”. While clearly, as set out in my earlier report, substance use has been extremely important in the development of his psychotic illness and has significantly detrimentally affected his mental state, in my opinion, the substance use is not the sole cause, as clearly other factors are relevant including likely genetic factors and his chaotic developmental history.

[21] In my view, Mr Bugmy has a complex presentation and it is likely that there is a general tendency to significant disinhibition and impulsivity which reflects psychosocial deprivation, sustained and heavy drug use, head injury and the effects of chronic mental illness, which have likely resulted in significant cognitive impairments. However, in my view, psychotic phenomena in the context of mental health impairment caused by schizophrenia has been the most salient part of his presentation.

[22] In relation to Section 28 of the Mental Health Cognitive Impairment (Forensic Provisions) Act, in my view, it is likely that he knew the nature and quality of the act, as the alleged offending appears to have been deliberate and intentional in nature. However, in my view, on balance it is likely that he did not know the act was wrong (that is that he could not reason [with] a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong), as a result of a highly disturbed mental state manifesting with disinhibition, paranoia and experience of hallucinations in the context of untreated major mental illness. Whether he has the defence of mental health impairment available to him is an ultimate issue for the court. However, in my view, this proposition can be strongly argued for the above reasons.

Dr Dayalan

42. Dr Dayalan’s general assessment of Mr Bugmy was provided in his first report: [18]

[107] … Given the chronic nature of his psychotic symptoms, report of persisting symptoms in the absence of substance use and severe functional impairment, I am of the opinion that Mr Bugmy probably suffers from schizophrenia as per the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders Version 5. Substance induced psychosis is a differential diagnosis.

[108] It is noted Mr Bugmy had been exposed to traumatic experiences in his childhood. He gave a history of re-experiencing the traumatic events in the form of dissociative flashbacks. He engages in avoidant behaviour and was very reluctant to recall details of his experiences. Perception of heightened threat manifested as hypervigilance and propensity to interpret events in a persecutory manner. He has severe and pervasive problems in affect regulation. Difficulties with interpersonal functioning and sustaining relationships were noted. He described chronic low self-esteem, The information gathered is consistent with diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (complex PTSD). There is considerable overlap between complex PTSD and borderline personality disorder.

[109] The pattern of use of substances is consistent with Mr Bugmy suffering from substance use disorder – alcohol, cannabis opiates, benzodiazepines and stimulants.

[110] Mr Bugmy has been formally assessed to have deficits in his intellectual functioning. Problems with attention, problem solving, abstract thinking, judgment and academic learning were noted. He also presents with deficits in adaptive functioning such as communication, social interaction, self-care and employment. I concur with the established diagnosis of mild intellectual disability.

43. At the time of that report, Dr Dayalan favoured an opinion that Mr Bugmy had available to him the defence of mental health impairment, although it appears to have been expressed with qualification: [19]

[127] As noted earlier, it was difficult to explore Mr Bugmy’s mental state or recollection of events in depth. Therefore there are limitations to opinion offered in the defence of mental health or cognitive impairment. The presence of psychotic symptoms around the time of the alleged offence, his propensity for extreme dysregulation in emotions and behaviour (supported by distressed state and erratic behaviour at the time of his arrest) and Mr Bugmy’s claim that he felt persecuted by the victim in the absence of any rational reasons for the belief, support the opinion that Mr Bugmy could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the alleged offence. The information that does not favour the defence include rational reasons for Mr Bugmy to be upset with the victim, intoxication at the time and his long standing propensity to resort to violence when feeling unfairly treated. On a balance of probabilities, I am of the opinion that Mr Bugmy would have the defence of mental health impairment.

44. However, in his report of 27 January 2026, which was written with the benefit of having access to Dr Martin’s report of 22 October 2025, Dr Dayalan was unequivocal: [20]

[5] The additional information provided is largely consistent with the clinical impressions outlined in my initial report. I am of the opinion that Mr Bugmy suffers from schizophrenia. Around the time of the alleged offence, he had not been taking his antipsychotic medication and he had also been abusing crystal methamphetamine and cannabis. These are well-established triggers for exacerbation of psychosis in an individual with schizophrenia.

[6] Concerns regarding his mental state had been raised by the support worker and his housemate around the time of the alleged offences. Their account suggested that he has been experiencing auditory hallucinations. Mr Bugmy’s presentation after the alleged offence was indicative of disorganisation in behaviour and thought form, persecutory delusions and auditory hallucinations. He was, therefore, suffering from a disturbance of thought, mood and perception which was significant for clinical diagnostic purposes. The disturbance had impaired his emotional wellbeing, judgment and behaviour. At the time of the alleged offence, Mr Bugmy was suffering from a mental health impairment as per the definition in the Act. He was also suffering from complex post-traumatic stress disorder and mild intellectual disability given the chronic nature of the conditions.

[7] The description of the alleged offending behaviour did not indicate Mr Bugmy’s level of consciousness was impaired around that time. It was evident that he had intended to harm the victim. It cannot be stated that Mr Bugmy did not know the nature and quality of his actions.

[8] Whilst acknowledging the limitations in the assessment detailed in my initial report, I am of the opinion that the psychotic symptoms experienced by Mr Bugmy around the time of the alleged offence, his propensity for extreme dysregulation in emotions and behaviour and reported feeling of persecution by the victim probably impaired Mr Bugmy’s capacity to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act, as perceived by reasonable people was wrong. He probably did not know that the act was wrong.

[9] On a balance of probabilities, I am of the opinion that Mr Bugmy would have the defence of mental health impairment.

Conclusion

45. Neither counsel for the Crown nor the accused submitted there should be any other outcome than the return of a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

46. Considering the evidence in its totality as well as the opinions of Dr Martin and Dr Dayalan, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Bugmy did not know the act of assaulting and stabbing Mr Ward was wrong in the sense that he could not reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the act of assaulting and stabbing Mr Ward, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong.

47. The defence of mental health impairment is made out.

Verdict

48. On the charge that William David Bugmy, on 21 July 2023 at Newtown in the State of New South Wales did murder Talbot Ward, I find the act proven but the accused not criminally responsible.

The deceased

49. There was no family victim impact statement. Section 30E(6) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) provides this does not mean the offence had little or no impact on the members of Mr Ward’s immediate family.

50. In her statement, Ms Robinson described Mr Ward as “a good bloke” and “just a nice person”. [21] The Court extends its sincere condolences to those who mourn his death.

Orders

51. The following orders are made with the agreement of the parties:

52. A special verdict is entered pursuant to s 59(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) that the act is proven but William Bugmy is not criminally responsible due to mental health impairment.

53. Pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), order that William Bugmy be detained in a correctional facility or at such other place as may be determined from time to time by the Mental Health Review Tribunal until released by due process of law.

54. Pursuant to s 67 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), the Court refers William Bugmy to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

55. The Registrar is directed to notify the Minister for Health as soon as practicable of the making of these orders.

56. The Registrar is directed to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal as soon as practicable of the making of these orders and to provide the Tribunal with the following documentation:

(a) a copy of the Court's reasons for verdict and for the making of these orders; (b) copies of the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Dayalan from the special hearing.

6. Direct that the Registrar notify the Justice Health and Forensic Health Network as soon as practicable of the verdict and orders in this matter and to provide to it copies of the following documents:

(a) a copy of the Court's reasons for verdict and for the making of these orders; (b) copies of the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Dayalan from the special hearing.

**********

Endnotes

All subsequent references to legislation are to this Act.

T48.14.

T49.28.

T49.47.

T50.4.

Ex K, [9].

T50.35.

T50.38-51.1.

T52.12.

Ex K, [16].

T53.14.

Ex AC, p 2.

Ex AC, pp 2-3, 7-9.

Ex S, [32].

Ex T, [16]-[17].

There was an objection at the special hearing which resulted in there being no evidence tendered concerning an incident with an axe. It has not been taken into account in relation to any finding made.

Ex T, [18]-[22].

Ex 1, [107]-[110].

Ex 1, [127].

Ex 2, [5]-[9].

Ex K, [3].