R v Bugmy (No 3)

1. [1]

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

2. [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. [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. [4]

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

5. [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

1. [6]

   Section 54 describes what a special hearing is:

2. [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:

3. [8]

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

4. [9]

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

5. [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.

6. [11]

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

7. [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:

8. [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

1. [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.

2. [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.

3. [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.

4. [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.

5. [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]

6. [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.

7. [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]

8. [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]

9. [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]

10. [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.

11. [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.

12. [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.

13. [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.

14. [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.

15. [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.

16. [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.

17. [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]

18. [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.

19. [32]

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

20. [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

1. [34]

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

2. [35]

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

3. [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.

4. [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.

5. [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.

6. [39]

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

7. [40]

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

8. [41]

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

9. [42]

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

10. [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]

11. [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]

Conclusion

1. [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.

2. [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.

3. [47]

   The defence of mental health impairment is made out.

Verdict

1. [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

1. [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.

2. [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

1. [51]

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

   1. (1)

      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.

   2. (2)

      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.

   3. (3)

      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.

   4. (4)

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

   5. (5)

      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:

   6. (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: