Legal Research
Cases
Goodridge v R

Goodridge v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 37 26 March 2014

Appeal

Unfitness to be Tried

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Goodridge v R [2014] NSWCCA 37
Hearing dates: 3.12.2013
Decision date: 26 March 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Simpson J at [152]
Johnson J at [153]
Decision:
(1) In relation to the conviction appeal, appeal dismissed.
(2) In relation to the application for leave to appeal against sentence, leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - appellant unfit to be tried - special hearing before judge alone - offence of murder - whether appellant suffering from substantial impairment by abnormality of mind arising from an underlying condition - reports from two psychiatrists - diagnosis of acquired brain injury and alcohol intoxication at time of offence - psychiatrists not shown ERISPs and statements from lay witnesses - 5 hours of ERISPs taken within 2 days of offence - whether analysis of psychiatric evidence by trial judge accurate - whether opinion of psychiatrists displaced by ERISPs and evidence of lay witnesses - opinion of psychiatrists seriously undermined by ERISPs not being made available to them - trial judge's verdict not unreasonable and supported by the evidence - appropriate directions given by trial judge - no denial of procedural fairness - trial judge gave adequate opportunity to parties to address as to issues - SENTENCE APPEAL - whether limiting term manifestly excessive - trial judge appropriately applied sentencing principles while having regard to mental state of appellant - appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 - s18(1)(a)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s5(1)(b), s6(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) - s33(3)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 - s21(3)(c)
Cases Cited: Bhuiyan v R [2009] NSWCCA 221
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Fleming v R [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
Kurdi v R [2011] NSWCCA 179
M v R [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606
Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Matter of Adams - MHRT 25 July 2013
Morris v R [1987] HCA 50, 163 CLR 454
R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239
R v Hall (1988) 36 A Crim R 368
R v Hucker [2002] NSWSC 1068
R v Klamo [2008] VSCA 75; 18 VR 644
R v Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394; 62 NSWLR 181
R v Maxwell [1998] 217 ALR 452
R v Potts [2012] NSWCCA 229
R v Welsh (1996) 90 A Crim R 364 at 373-374
Rasic v R [2009] NSWCCA 202
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
The Queen v Keenan [2009] HCA 1; 236 CLR 397
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael William Goodridge - Applicant
Regina - Respondent Crown
Representation: Counsel:
Mr J Stratton SC/Ms N Mikhaiel - Applicant
Ms T Smith - Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
SE O'Connor, Legal Aid NSW - Applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Goodridge v R

Details

AGLC: Goodridge v R [2014] NSWCCA 37
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 37
Decision Date: 26 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Goodridge, appealed against both his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Goodridge was convicted of murder and was deemed unfit to be tried. The appeal was heard before a judge alone, given the nature of the unfitness to be tried issue. The central legal issues in this case revolved around the accuracy of the psychiatric evaluations concerning the appellant's mental state at the time of the offence and whether these evaluations were properly scrutinised by the trial judge. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the appellant's mental condition.

The court meticulously examined the psychiatric reports, which diagnosed the appellant with an acquired brain injury and alcohol intoxication at the time of the offence. The appellant's unfitness to be tried was based on these diagnoses. However, the court noted that the psychiatrists were not provided with all the evidence from the electronic record of interview with the special purpose listeners (ERISPs) and statements from lay witnesses. Despite the availability of five hours of ERISPs taken within two days of the offence, the psychiatrists' opinions were significantly impacted by the incomplete information. The court found that the trial judge's analysis of the psychiatric evidence was accurate and that the ERISPs and lay witness statements did not sufficiently undermine the psychiatrists' conclusions. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in their verdict and that procedural fairness was not denied to either party.

The court further addressed the appellant's challenge to the severity of the sentence, considering his mental state. The trial judge had appropriately applied sentencing principles while taking into account the appellant's mental condition. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders