Director of Public Prosecutions v Traynor (Ruling No 2)

[2012] VSC 179

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. S CR 2011 0096

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

BONNIE TRAYNOR

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2012
DATE OF RULING:	27 April 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Traynor (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 179

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Intentionally causing serious injury – Verdict entered of not guilty by reason of mental impairment – Reports received under s 41 of Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 – Custodial supervision order imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R H Lawrence	Doogue & O’Brian

HIS HONOUR:

1. In this matter, the accused, Bonnie Traynor, was charged on indictment on one count of intentionally causing serious injury to her father, Brett Traynor, on 3 April 2011. 

1. Ms Traynor pleaded not guilty to that charge on the grounds of mental impairment. 

1. On 16 March 2011, I conducted a hearing pursuant to s.21(4)(a) of the Crimes (Mental  Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act1997.  Having heard evidence in relation to the matter, I found that I was satisfied that the accused had established a defence of mental impairment.  I therefore directed that a verdict of not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment be recorded. 

1. I declared, pursuant to s 23(a) of the Act, that Ms Traynor be liable to supervision under Part V of the Act, and I remanded her in custody in the Thomas Embling Hospital, pursuant to s 24(1)(b).

1. The hearing of the matter was further adjourned to today pending receipt of a report under s 41(1) of the Act, and a certificate of available services under s 47.

1. At the previous hearing, I received victim family member report forms, signed by Mr Traynor, by Bonnie Traynor’s mother, Louise, and by her sisters, Jessica and Grace.  I have taken the opportunity to read those forms.  They are of assistance, and they demonstrate quite graphically the grave seriousness of the offending, and the lasting severe effects which that offending has had, both on Mr Traynor and on his immediate family.

1. I have now received a certificate of available services, dated 18 April 2011, and a report of Dr Zimmerman, consultant psychiatrist at Thomas Embling Hospital, dated 2 April 2012.  In her report, Dr Zimmerman describes a number of issues relating to Ms Traynor’s psychiatric condition, which need to be addressed before it is safe, for Ms Traynor or for the community, that she be released into the community.  The report contains a comprehensive plan, which is designed to address those issues and which, hopefully, will be successful in doing so. 

1. Dr Zimmerman concludes her report as follows, “I believe that Ms Traynor could be managed most safely on a custodial supervision order to enable further stabilisation of her psychosis and psychological work to address offending, personality functioning and substance abuse.  Work with the family will be crucial to a safe and successful return to the community.  I am of the opinion that a precipitate return to the community would pose a risk to the safety of her family, particularly the victim, emotionally if not physically”.

1. Based on that report, and on the evidence, which I heard and read at the previous hearing, and which I summarised in my previous ruling, it is clear that only a custodial supervision order is appropriate in this case.  Indeed, Mr Lawrence, who appears on behalf of Ms Traynor, has not advanced any argument to the contrary.  In my view, it is clearly in the interests of the community, Ms Traynor’s family and Ms Traynor herself, that she be subject to a custodial supervision order, so that she will be able to undergo and receive the appropriate treatment for the multiple issues which affect her state and which lay at the heart of her offending in this case.

1. Accordingly, pursuant to s 26(2)(a), I order that the accused, Bonnie Traynor, be liable to a custodial supervision order.  Pursuant to s 28 of the Act, I fix a nominal term of the supervision order of 20 years from 3 April 2011.

1. Mr McArdle, are there any other orders?  It is usual also to commit the accused to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health. 

MR McARDLE:  That is the third one that I think is required.  That is explained in the covering letter, the correct name of the custodian. 

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.  Thank you for that. 

Thirdly, I shall order that the accused, Bonnie Traynor, be committed to the custody of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health.