Ferizovic v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] QSC 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Ferizovic v Director of Public Prosecutions [2026] QSC 56 PARTIES: SEFIK FERIZOVIC (applicant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent) FILE NO/S: BS 867/26 DIVISION: Trial Division PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane DELIVERED ON: 26 March 2026 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 24 March 2026 JUDGE: Smith J ORDER: I grant bail to the applicant on the terms specified in the draft order provided to the court. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – BAIL – where the applicant is in a show cause situation – where the applicant has a significant health condition – where it is likely that he will be found to be of unsound mind at the time of the offence – whether he should be detained in custody or treated for his mental health condition in the community – whether a restrictive bail order sufficiently ameliorates the risk of reoffending Bail Act 1980 (Qld) ss 11A, 16 Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) s 49 DPP v Bakir [2006] QCA 562, applied Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413, cited Re Bloomfield [2014] QSC 115, considered Re Lazar [2016] NSWSC 1462, considered Re Neale [2013] QSC 310, cited Williamson v DPP [1999] QCA 356; [2001] 1 Qd R 99, applied COUNSEL: L Ygoa-McKeown for the applicant A Conrick for the respondent SOLICITORS: Bazzi Law for the applicant -- 1 of 7 -- 2 Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent INTRODUCTION [1] The applicant applies for bail on two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. [2] The applicant is in a show cause situation by reason of s 16(3)(c) of the Bail Act 1980 because the defendant is alleged to have used or threatened to use an offensive weapon. This means the onus is on him to show that his detention in custody is not warranted.1 BACKGROUND [3] The applicant is 25 years old. He has a criminal history which includes convictions for failing to appear; unlawful possession of a weapon; common assault and contravention of a domestic violence order. He was sentenced to 50 days imprisonment with that time in presentence custody declared on 24 June 2025. [4] The next day the applicant committed the first assault offence. The complainant was with two other people sitting at an outdoor table of a hotel in Upper Mount Gravatt. The applicant approached him and asked if he thought the applicant was speaking weirdly. He then punched the complainant in the head. The complainant punched him back. The complainant fell and the applicant continued punching him and then ran away. The offending was recorded on CCTV footage. Police attended a short time later and noticed some injuries on the complainant. His injuries were a displaced right nasal bone fracture, a laceration and haematoma. The applicant was not charged until 30 October 2025. [5] When later interviewed by a psychiatrist, the applicant said he believed the complainant was someone who had done something bad to him in his life and this person was “in someone else’s body”. Voices told him to attack the complainant. [6] On the evening of 22 August 2025 the complainant, a 16-year-old with intellectual disability and impairment, was with his two carers at the Broadwater Park. He was sitting on a swing when the applicant approached from behind and stabbed him with a butter knife, which resulted in a small cut to the back right torso. Support workers intervened and chased the applicant as he ran back to his house. The applicant put the butter knife into the kitchen draw. Police later arrived. The complainant did not wish to go to hospital. [7] The applicant spoke to the police who admitted being involved in the offending. He said he felt crazy and wanted to stab someone. He later told a psychiatrist that for a month voices had told him to stab someone. This commenced when he was in Bosnia, and he promised them he would do this in Australia. He didn’t want to hurt the person, just stab them. He believed he needed to stab someone or else the world would end, and everybody would die, and voices told him to do it to this boy. [8] The applicant was arrested and charged and remanded in custody. He applied for bail on 23 August unsuccessfully. On the afternoon of 25 August 2025 in the Pine 1 Re Neale [2013] QSC 310. -- 2 of 7 -- 3 Rivers watchhouse he was with a fellow detainee, a complainant. He repeatedly hit the complainant. [9] The applicant told the psychiatrist he believed the complainant was pointing at him and voices had told him to attack the complainant. The applicant believed he was going to take control of Elon Musk’s companies in the future. [10] The evidence reveals that whilst in custody up until 24 November 2025 the applicant attacked other prisoners on four occasions. The alleged attacks are not the subject of any charges. It seems he was psychotic at that time, although his mental state appears to have been improving between 26 October 2025 and 6 November 2025. [11] On 24 November 2025, the applicant was admitted to the High Security Inpatient Service (the HSIS) until 20 January 2026. His psychotic symptoms had completely remitted particularly after switching to depot medication. He remained subject to a treatment authority. Dr Steele saw the applicant on 30 January 2026 and considered him to be settled and significantly improved. APPLICANT’S MATERIAL [12] The applicant is 25 years old and was born and raised in Brisbane. He was educated to year 12. He started using cannabis at the age of 16 and this progressed to more serious drugs such that he became drug dependent by 19. Since he has been remanded in custody, his father has maintained regular and ongoing contact with treating clinicians at the prison mental health service including Dr Steele. Notwithstanding his difficulties, the applicant has made genuine efforts to maintain employment. After school he obtained an apprenticeship in flooring and worked in that trade for several years. Shortly before the offending he secured further employment doing gyprock installation. [13] A domestic violence order was made in favour of the father in 2022. There has been one breach of this when the applicant was not medicated. [14] Notwithstanding the applicant’s position, the parents are prepared to support him in complying with all bail conditions. [15] The applicant’s matters had been referred to the Mental Health Court (MHC) and are presently awaiting listing. If the applicant is subject to a community treatment authority he can reside with his parents, and he will be supported by them. Their residence is accessible via an easement with a security camera and surrounded by a fence. They are willing to put in place measures to ensure strict compliance with bail conditions and have secured all knives and sharp objects in a safe to which he has no access. [16] The father has visited the applicant weekly and during these visits the applicant has acknowledged his need for ongoing treatment and has expressed willingness to engage in treatment. [17] There is also an affidavit from the mother which corroborates what the father has said. She also has worked in care and will spend her time looking after the applicant. -- 3 of 7 -- 4 PSYCHIATRIC MATERIAL [18] A number of psychiatric records have been obtained concerning the applicant. They disclose he has been seeking psychiatric treatment for quite some time. Dr Vikas Moudgil in a report dated 15 September 2023 expressed the opinion that the applicant suffered from early psychosis which had the potential to develop into schizophrenia on the background of previous heavy illicit drug misuse. [19] A psychiatric report has been prepared at the direction of the Chief Psychiatrist. It was noted that the applicant reported a trauma background because of the effect of the Bosnian War on his father. The applicant’s first encounter with public mental health services was when he was 18 years of age when he presented with erratic and agitated behaviour. He had paranoia and persecutorial delusions. There were similar presentations with hallucinations and erratic behaviours in 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023. On 9 August 2023, it was concluded he had suffered a psychotic episode in the context of a primary psychotic illness. He had been abstinent from methamphetamine and cocaine but was using cannabis. [20] On 26 August 2025 he presented with acute psychosis. Voices had told him he was going to die. He believed someone was trying to kill him and he had been increasingly aggressive at home. He saw Dr Steele in prison and on 26 September 2025 she concluded he remained psychotic, and his mental state was not improving. [21] He was admitted to the HSIS on 24 November 2025 and was treated with olanzapine. The applicant reported he had been hearing voices for a long time and they were constant during the previous six months. He denied the voices ever told him to harm or kill himself. When interviewed in the HSIS in December he denied current hallucinations but reported hearing voices. It was noted by the psychiatrist that the risk of violence towards others remained high as long as the applicant remained symptomatic and insightless. Future victims could be random, and his parents were at a particular risk. [22] With respect to the offence on 22 August 2025 it was concluded that the applicant was fully deprived of the capacity to know that he ought not do the act in relation to the offending behaviour. He was impaired in his capacity to control his behaviour in relation to the offences. Similar opinions were expressed with regard to the offences on 25 June 2025 and 25 August 2025. Despite this, it was thought the applicant was currently fit for trial. [23] The doctor noted the applicant had long term treatment needs with an emphasis on ongoing biological treatment of his schizophrenia. He would require ongoing treatment under the Mental Health Act due to long term significant risks to the community. If the MHC determines he was of unsound mind at the time of the offences, the doctor would support the making of a forensic order. [24] On 9 February 2026, Dr Steele in a letter to the applicant’s solicitor noted that in the months leading up to his admission it was clear that the applicant was unwell. He was admitted to the HSIS from 24 November 2025 until 20 January 2026. Her diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was confirmed by the treating psychiatrist. He also attracted a diagnosis of substance dependence disorder and anti-social personality traits. During the admission he was switched to different anti-psychotic medication. His psychotic symptoms remitted completely although there was a lack -- 4 of 7 -- 5 of insight into his condition and the need for ongoing treatment. She saw him on 30 January 2026 and he denied any psychotic symptoms. His risk of harm to others appears to have returned to the premorbid baseline but is higher than his peers but is no longer acutely high. His risk of harm to others would increase if he accessed alcohol or illicit substances. APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS [25] The applicant submits that the applicant is now subject to a treatment authority and his matter is before the MHC. His risk has returned to the pre-morbid baseline. If released he would remain under the treatment authority and care of Queensland Mental Health. Whilst there is a risk of reoffending, any risk can be adequately addressed with the imposition of appropriate conditions. The applicant was not criminally responsible for his actions because of his then untreated psychotic illness. [26] It is likely the matter will finalise with a dismissal of the proceedings. It is submitted that the affidavits of the parents demonstrate their insight and understanding of the applicant’s needs and they will support him. Particularly considering this fact, the fact he is under a treatment authority and his motivation to remain in the community, it is appropriate that bail be granted. RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS [27] The respondent opposes bail. The respondent submits there is an unacceptable risk that the applicant endangers the safety and welfare of any person and a lesser risk of failing to appear. It is submitted there are no conditions that can be imposed which could ameliorate the risks associated with his release on bail, and he should be remanded in custody for his own protection. [28] The respondent refers to the mental health conditions and submits the court would not have confidence that the applicant’s current treatment has been effective enough to ameliorate the risks posed by the release and the court would not be confident he would be sufficiently compliant with a treatment or regime. It is submitted the material could give rise to an inference that he does not understand the effect of a bail undertaking and the requirements of s 11A of the Bail Act have not been fulfilled. [29] It is submitted the Crown’s case is strong and the applicant is in a show cause situation. It is accepted there is a clear possibility the applicant will not be held criminally liable for these offences. The offences are serious, particularly the one involving a knife. It is concerning that he assaulted a number of other prisoners whilst on remand. The severe mental health conditions and the random acts of violence suggest that the risk is too great to grant bail and the application should be refused. DISCUSSION [30] When reaching my decision, I have had regard to the provisions of s 16 of the Bail Act 1980. Also as was said in DPP v Bakir,2 balancing factors such as risk and the effect of proposed bail conditions is a matter of impression and degree. 2 [2006] QCA 562 at [27]. -- 5 of 7 -- 6 [31] I also note that in Williamson v DPP,3 it was said that no grant of bail is risk free and bail is an important process in civilised societies. [32] Also, despite the fact the applicant is in a show cause situation, the relevant question remains whether there is an unacceptable risk of failing to appear, committing further offences, endangering the safety of any person and interfering with witnesses.4 [33] There are real issues raised in this case on whether jail is the only appropriate place for a person with such mental health conditions to be treated. Sometimes jail is the only answer, but in other cases there are other avenues available particularly where there is family support to have a person engage in meaningful mental health treatment in the community. [34] This tension was discussed in Re Lazar5 where Harrison J said: “It is tempting to see mental health treatment as the answer to all types of offending and some bail concerns. This is not without some basis, as very often accused persons are suffering from serious psychiatric disorders which have contributed to their offending and for which they do not receive adequate treatment in gaol. On the other hand, where an offender has demonstrated a repeated inclination towards criminal offending, even in the face of strict bail conditions imposed on him or her by the courts, the level of comfort that might be afforded to the courts by the prospect of medical intervention is diminished.” [35] Under s 49 of the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) there is a regime under which treatment authority orders may be made. This requires the authorising doctor to decide the nature and extent of the treatment and care to be provided to the person. The applicant is subject to such an order. This provides a level of protection against risk. [36] In this particular case the key consideration is whether the imposition of conditions will sufficiently ameliorate the risk of reoffending. There is no doubt on the material that the applicant has a significant mental health condition. However, the evidence reveals that his condition has improved whilst he has been in the HSIS. Dr Steele deposes that the risk of harm to others has returned to his pre-morbid baseline although still higher than his peers. [37] Because it is alleged the applicant was of unsound mind at the time of the commission of the offences, this issue needs to be determined by the MHC. There will be a considerable delay before the MHC is able to deal with the applicant’s matters. Presently the applicant has served six months in pre-sentence custody. There is a real prospect in this case that the applicant will spend at least 16 months in custody and then will be found of unsound mind. Even if that finding is not made that would be more time he would spend in custody after a plea of guilty which takes into account the mental health condition.6 3 [1999] QCA 356; [2001] 1 Qd R 99. 4 Re Bloomfield [2014] QSC 115 at [5]. 5 [2016] NSWSC 1462 at [36]. 6 If one assumes a 2–3-year head sentence. It must be accepted (absent a mental health defence) there is a strong case. -- 6 of 7 -- 7 [38] Despite the seriousness of the offending, fortunately with respect to the butter knife charge the injury does not appear significant. [39] The following factors favour the grant of bail: (a) The real risk of spending too much time in custody;7 (b) The importance of his receiving treatment for his mental health condition; (c) The improvement in his condition which Dr Steele has mentioned; (d) The crucial support his parents will provide him; [40] I also consider that a strict suite of conditions will sufficiently ameliorate the risk of re-offending: (a) A residential condition; (b) A 24-hour curfew with exceptions only when in the company of his family and for appearances in court and treatment; (c) Regular reporting to police; (d) A prohibition on possessing weapons; consuming alcohol (with testing); possession and consuming drugs (with tests); (e) A prohibition on interstate and international travel; (f) Surrender of passport; (g) Prohibition on contacting any crown witness including the complainants. (h) A requirement to comply with a treatment authority; (i) A requirement to comply with all treatment recommendations and prescribe medication as directed; (j) A requirement to engage with a psychiatrist; (k) Electronic monitoring; and (l) Limitations of what he can view on the internet. [41] With these conditions I consider that cause has been shown. CONCLUSION [42] I propose to grant the applicant bail on conditions contained in the draft order which has been provided by the parties. 7 Of course, delay must be balanced against risk, see Lacey v DPP [2007] QCA 413. -- 7 of 7 --