Police v Francis William Goodworth

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION:	Police v Francis William GOODWORTH [2007] NSWLC 2
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
PARTIES:	Police Francis William GOODWORTH
FILE NUMBER:
PLACE OF HEARING:	Moree
DATE OF DECISION:	03/28/2007
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate G Lerve
CATCHWORDS:	Malicious Damage by Fire – substantial damage – mental illness – use of statistics – hardship to third parties following imprisonment of offender – jurisdictional limit (as opposed to maximum penalty) in the Local Court
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
CASES CITED:	R –v- Byrne (1998) 104 A Crim R 456 R –v- Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115; 115 A Crim R 497 R –v- DMA (2001) 126 A Crim R 264 R –v- Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 R –v- Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R –v- Malcolm [2006] NSWCCA 323 R –v- Mazur (2000) 113 A Crim R 67 R –v- Ryan (2003) 141 A Crim R 403 R –v- Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145 R –v- Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
REPRESENTATION:	SGT B. Willett, Police Prosecutor Ms. P. Croll
ORDERS:	Convicted and Sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with 8 months non-parole period

Remarks on Sentence

1. This case is yet another example of the inadequacies of the criminal law in dealing with offenders who, while suffering a mental illness commit serious criminal offences. I must admit to a certain degree of frustration in dealing with this matter. It involves the total destruction by fire of a dwelling, which had an insured value of $80,000-00. According to oral submissions made by the prosecutor, and which I accept, the matter was referred to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but that office declined to take over the matter. Had this matter been dealt with on Indictment the offender would maybe have had the advantage of being able to use the provisions relating to unfitness to be tried within the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, 1990. The record will reflect that Ms. Croll, who at all stages has appeared for this offender made application that I conditionally dismiss this matter pursuant to the provisions of s. 32 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act, 1990. I declined to exercise my discretion pursuant to that provision on 5 February 2007. Essentially, I declined to so deal with the matter because of the seriousness of the offending, and the fact that if I took the course urged upon me by Ms. Croll, the court could only have supervised the offender for a period of six months. I have put a substantial effort into this matter, including going through 51 cases from the Court of Criminal Appeal on the issue of sentence. Because of the factual situation of those cases and/or the peculiar nature of this case they were of little assistance. Given the seriousness of the offending and the offender’s situation, it is appropriate that I fully expose my reasoning in the sentencing process.

2. By way of…