R v Fineanganafo (No 1) - [2024] NSWSC 1400

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fineanganafo (No 1) [2024] NSWSC 1400
Hearing dates: 4 November 2024
Date of orders: 8 November 2024
Decision date: 08 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
In relation to each count on the indictment, I return a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

Catchwords:
MENTAL HEALTH – criminal proceedings – defence of mental illness – where the accused was charged with six offences, including the murder of Steven Tougher - where the parties agreed that the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment –– enquiry under s 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 - whether the proposed evidence established a defence of mental health impairment – where there was no doubt the accused committed the physical acts – where two psychiatrists agreed that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment, namely schizophrenia – where both experts agreed that the accused did not know that this acts were wrong – where there was nothing to cast doubt on the opinions of the psychiat-rists – accepted that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment and that as a result he did not know that his acts were wrong – special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible returned

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 23A, 33B, 117, 195
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 13
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 191
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW) s 14
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) ss 4, 14, 28, 31, 33, 34

Cases Cited:
Da-Pra v R; R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
R v Iusi Afele [2014] NSWSC 366
R v Jackson [2021] NSWSC 1404
R v Siemek (No. 1) [2021] NSWSC 1292

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Jordan James Fineanganofo (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay SC & B Allison (Crown)
A Karim (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Sydney Criminal Law Specialists (Accused)

File Number(s): 2023/120648
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

The accused is charged with six offences committed on 13 and 14 April 2023. The offences charged are these:

That the accused Jordan James Fineanganofo:

Count 1: on 13 April 2023, at Campbelltown intimidated Lavinia Simpson with the intention of causing her to fear physical harm contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).

Count 2: on 13 April 2023, at Campbelltown intentionally damaged a Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, NSW registration CY80NH, the property of Jamie Howe contrary to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Count 3: on 14 April 2023, at Ingleburn used an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence namely intimidation contrary to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Count 4: on 14 April 2023, at Ingleburn stole a Billabong branded cooler bag containing three two-way radios, the property of Phillip Appleyard contrary…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Fineanganafo (No 1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 1400
Decision Date: 08 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fineanganafo (No 1) arose from charges against the accused of multiple offences, including the murder of Steven Tougher. The accused contested the charges on the basis of a mental health defence, asserting that at the time of the offences, he was suffering from a mental health impairment that prevented him from understanding that his actions were wrong. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which conducted an inquiry under section 31 of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 to determine whether the accused was not criminally responsible due to a mental health impairment.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the evidence presented by the defence established that the accused suffered from a mental health impairment at the time of the offences, and if so, whether this impairment negated his criminal responsibility. The court had to consider the medical evidence provided by two psychiatrists who agreed that the accused suffered from schizophrenia and that this condition impaired his ability to know that his actions were wrong. The court also needed to determine whether the accused's knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions was sufficiently impaired by his mental health condition to negate his criminal responsibility.

In determining the matter, the court accepted the unchallenged expert evidence that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offences. Both psychiatrists concurred that this condition impaired the accused's ability to understand that his actions were wrong. The court found that there was no evidence to contradict the psychiatrists' opinions and accepted that the accused did indeed suffer from a mental health impairment. Consequently, the court concluded that the accused did not know that his actions were wrong due to his mental health impairment. As a result, the court returned a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.

The court's final orders included a special verdict acknowledging that the accused committed the physical acts charged, but found him not criminally responsible due to his mental health impairment. The court determined that the accused was not guilty by reason of mental health impairment, leading to a disposal that recognised the need for appropriate treatment and management of the accused's mental health condition.

Orders