AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
Supreme Court 9 July 2026

R v Bulluss

[2026] NSWSC 794

Homicide
CRIME JUDGE ALONE TRIAL MURDER

Citation: R v Bulluss [2026] NSWSC 794
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 July 2026
Judge: Sirtes J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of a woman at Tweed Heads West on 7 February 2024, contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He was arraigned in April 2026 and pleaded not guilty. From the outset, both the Crown and the defence identified the availability of a mental health impairment defence as the sole issue in the proceedings.

The accused had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Multiple forensic psychiatrists prepared reports, including Professor David Greenberg OAM and Dr Richard Furst (retained by the defence) and Dr Kerri Eagle (retained by the Crown). An adjournment was granted in June 2026 to allow Dr Eagle to prepare a supplementary report on an issue that had arisen, with the Crown acknowledging that fairness to the accused required her opinions to be provided in written form rather than given orally on the day.

By 6 July 2026, the parties had reached agreement under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) (the Act) that the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment. The matter proceeded as a hearing under that provision rather than as a trial.

  • Whether the three conditions under s 31 of the Act were satisfied, specifically: agreement between the parties that the evidence established a mental health impairment defence; representation of the accused by an Australian legal practitioner; and the court's own satisfaction that the defence was established.
  • Whether a special verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible" should be entered.
  • What orders should follow the special verdict regarding detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.

Decision

Procedural framework under s 31: Sirtes J confirmed that a hearing under s 31 of the Act is not a trial but an evidentiary inquiry. Because it is not a trial, formal reasons for verdict under s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) are not strictly required. However, the Court chose to provide reasons in the interests of open justice and public understanding of a serious charge, consistent with the approach taken in earlier decisions including R v Summers-Smith [2026] NSWSC 125 and R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064.

Satisfaction of the s 31 conditions: All three conditions under s 31 were met. The Crown and the defence agreed that the evidence established the defence of mental health impairment (s 31(a)). The accused was represented by both counsel and a solicitor, satisfying s 31(b). After considering the evidence, including multiple expert psychiatric reports and a statement of agreed facts, the Court was independently satisfied that the defence was established (s 31(c)). The accused's schizophrenia diagnosis was central to the expert consensus.

Special verdict: Sirtes J entered a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible pursuant to s 31 of the Act.

Post-verdict matters: The Court received and considered a victim impact statement from the deceased's first cousin under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The statement could only be received after the special verdict was returned. The Court acknowledged the family's grief and extended condolences. The Court did not order the accused's release, and instead ordered his detention and referral to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under ss 33 and 34 of the Act.

Orders Made

  • A special verdict entered under s 31 of the Act: the act is proven but the accused is not criminally responsible.
  • The accused is to be detained in a correctional facility or such other place as determined by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, until released by due process of law (s 33(1)(b) of the Act).
  • The accused is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (s 34 of the Act).
  • The victim impact statement of Mr Bill Burgess is to be provided to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (s 30N(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)).
  • The Registrar is to notify the Minister for Health as soon as practicable.
  • The Registrar is to notify the Mental Health Review Tribunal and provide it with the court's reasons, transcript, and copies of all exhibits including the expert psychiatric reports.
  • The Registrar is to notify the Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network and provide it with the court's reasons and copies of the expert reports.

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), a court may enter a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible where both parties agree that the evidence establishes a mental health impairment defence, the accused is legally represented, and the court is independently satisfied that the defence is established.
  • A hearing under s 31 is not a trial but an evidentiary inquiry, meaning strict compliance with s 133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) regarding reasons for verdict is not required. However, the Supreme Court again exercised its discretion to provide reasons in the interests of open justice.
  • Victim impact statements in proceedings resulting in a special verdict can only be received by the court after that verdict is returned, pursuant to s 30L(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The court is then required to provide copies to the Mental Health Review Tribunal.
  • Where a special verdict is entered and the court does not order the accused's release, s 33(3) of the Act requires the court to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the safety of the accused or any member of the public would not be seriously endangered before release can be ordered.
  • Following a special verdict, the accused becomes a forensic patient and is referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which then determines questions of ongoing detention or release.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
- Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 38, 49
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 30L, 30N
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW), s 20

Cases:
- R v Summers-Smith [2026] NSWSC 125
- R v Lailna [2023] NSWSC 48
- R v Tonga [2022] NSWSC 1064
- R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
- R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292
- Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
- Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500; [1994] HCA 28