Rudraksh SAHA v R

Jurisdiction: Criminal

Before: Montgomery DCJ

Decision: See [15]

Catchwords: CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court — By person convicted against conviction — By person sentenced against sentence — With leave following plea of guilty — Evidence not before Magistrate — Mental Health
SENTENCING — Appeal against sentence — Fresh or new evidence — Mitigating factors — Not fully aware of the consequences of his or her actions because of the offender’s age or any disability — Subjective considerations on sentence — Mental illness — Penalties — Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 53
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 10
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), s 14
Road Rules 2014 (NSW), r 56(2)(a), r 154A(1)

Category: Sentence

Parties: Rudraksh Saha (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Representation: Solicitors:
Mr Moussa, National Criminal Lawyers (Applicant)
Ms Miller, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2025/00352682

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

[Fresh evidence including psychological opinion of Dr Rowe]

1. This matter came before the Court initially as a severity appeal. By notice of motion filed 4 February 2026, and without opposition from the Crown, the appeal was amended to be an all-grounds appeal. The applicant brings the appeal pursuant to s 14 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act and relies centrally on the report of Dr Rowe, specialist neuropsychologist dated 16 December 2025.

2. It is common ground that the offence committed was very significant. It involved three traffic offences under r 56(2)(a) of the Road Rules, r 154A(1) of the Road Rules and s 53 of the Crimes Act. He was convicted and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order of 12 months.

3. The circumstances are that he caused a major motor vehicle collision in which persons were seriously injured when, at 9.33pm on 3 April 2025, approaching the intersection of Wilson Road, Acacia Gardens, the applicant entered a bus only lane, as he intended to turn right. This was a mistake. However, once within the bus lane he panicked. He panicked to an extent explained by Dr Rowe, to which I will come, whereby his ability to exercise rational thought, his normal high functioning level of cognition and judgment were severely compromised by that panic.

4. The extent of his panic was that rather than just stop or merge back into the traffic, he continued beyond a red traffic arrow and a “No Right Turn – Buses Excepted” sign.

5. A matter of concern, which I have raised with counsel is that this act of passing traffic control signals of that nature is an act requiring, or an error requiring, extremely low cognition, judgment and reason. That is the nature of such clear traffic control signalling.

6. There is no suggestion otherwise concerning the traffic control signalling here. He was travelling with his partner at the time, and they were in the course of a fractious and animus dispute. He feared that they might break up. That scenario was a layer of mental stress on top of other stresses, in summary they being: that in the previous year his grandmother, with whom he was very close, had deceased; he had only at the commencement of the year changed from Macquarie University to Sydney University, and was finding settling into the rigour of the new academia stressful; he was tutoring children, and was very concerned as to his performance, and there had been ongoing anger and animosity between he and his first serious partner.

7. Indeed, his stress was that he had been functioning badly. That is, not in accordance with his high expectation of self because of his normal, high functioning performance, in relation to all of those categories and functions of his life, academia, tutoring and personally. According to Dr Rowe's report, the applicant suffers Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood and anxiety, which is founded in the hardship of his being brought up with very strict parenting, directing him to academic excellence with serious, at least as he would describe them, emotionally cold and harsh consequences if he did not achieve.

8. The extent of his compromised reasoning and judgment is at the heart of this s 14 application, and of course I mean at the time of the offending. At paragraph 40, Dr Rowe described the depressive episode at that time as a consequence of the sustained and cumulative effect of the stresses I have just referred to, and exceeding his capacity to cope. Dr Rowe at paragraph 42 expressly stated that he was suffering impairment extending to his driving behaviour. Most importantly, and I will not repeat it all, between paragraphs 57 and 61 Dr Rowe described that once in the bus lane the applicant, having exaggerated perceptions and fears, such as a bus coming upon him, that his panic reached the state of fight or flight response. His capacity for rational thought was impaired and he was suffering a reduced ability to process traffic signals effectively and prioritised an escape behaviour over considered decision-making.

9. I repeat that which I have said earlier in these reasons, but put repeatedly to Mr Moussa, who represents the applicant today, that the traffic control signals required an extremely low level of cognition and decision-making. This was not even as complex as the question of how fast one drives into a corner, or controls their motor vehicle. It merely required stopping on a stop sign, or stopping at a red light. At paragraph 60 Dr Rowe said:

"As a result of this escalating mental health impairment, including executive dysfunction, inattention and impaired impulse control, [the applicant] failed to process road signage adequately, missed the red arrow, and impulsively drove across oncoming traffic. At that point, he was unable to inhibit his impulsive response, evaluate the potential consequences of his actions, or consider safer, lawful alternatives, such as stopping and reassessing his position, or waiting for an opportunity to merge safely back into the correct lane, due to the effects of his panicked mental state and high level of executive dysfunction."

10. At 61:

"In my opinion, there is a clear causal relationship between [the applicant's] pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities, the acute psychological stresses he was experiencing, and the significant mental impairment present at the time of the offences. The combination of emotional dysregulation, hyperarousal, maladaptive coping strategies and cognitive impairment created the conditions for the inattentive and impulsive driving behaviour that led to the accident."

11. I note I have inserted the words "the applicant" in place of the name of the individual applicant.

12. I proceed by way of imposing aggregate sentence. The offences occurred in a single course of driving. I am not satisfied, when considering the grounds set out under s 15 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 that the mental health impairment and cognitive impairment, which the parties agree satisfy s 14, justifies proceeding other than in accordance with law. This is particularly because of the very seriousness of the driving breaches, and although not specifically because of the injuries incurred, those injuries measure indeed lighter than may have been the consequence of such driving, and that is the very nature of the seriousness of driving through a red light and “No Right Turn – Buses Excepted”, sign.

13. In my view, the suitability of sentencing options available, given his offending, are well satisfied according to law. I bear in mind that he is a person of excellent character, he is an excellent citizen, he is a fine young person of no criminal or driving antecedent history, he has not made any previous application under this section or under s 32 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. He is currently subject to a mental health plan, and he is not likely to endanger the safety of a victim or other member of the public, so long as he continues with the significant rehabilitative steps he has taken under his mental health plan. I bear in mind the excellent references which he has received, and I bear in mind his apology to the Court.

14. In my determination, his cognition and ability to exercise judgment were so significantly reduced that whilst, as I have said, it is appropriate to proceed by law, I am satisfied to proceed without conviction, pursuant to s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and discharge the applicant on a Conditional Release Order of one and one half years, the terms of which are to include the additional conditions that he fully comply with his mental health plan, and that he not drive a motor vehicle until certified by his treating psychologist as fit to do so.

15. Orders:

1. Quash the Orders made by Chisholm LCM on 20 October 2025;

2. Pursuant to s 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the offender be discharged under a Conditional Release Order for 18 months, commencing 19 February 2026, the conditions of which are:

(a) He be of good behaviour and not commit any offence;

(b) He must appear before the court if called on to do so at any time during the term of the Conditional Release Order;

(c) He enter into a rehabilitation and treatment program and comply with all treatment recommended by his treating medical professionals, including psychologist Ms Sushama Sathe and neuropsychologist Dr Donald Rowe;

(d) He fully comply with the mental health treatment plan being ‘Appendix A’ to the report of Dr Donald Rowe dated 16 December 2025;

(e) He not drive a motor vehicle on a public street of New South Wales until certified fit to do so by his treating psychologist or neuropsychologist; and

(f) Once he is certified as fit to drive as stated in the preceding condition, he must report to the Court any further traffic infringements for the remaining period of his Conditional Release Order.