R v Goodridge - [2012] NSWSC 378

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Goodridge [2012] NSWSC 378
Hearing dates: 16, 17 and 19 April 2012
Decision date: 20 April 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
I find that on the limited evidence available the accused did commit the offence of murder charged.

Catchwords: CRIME - murder - special hearing - partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: - R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505; 54 NSWLR 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Michael William Goodridge
Representation: Counsel:
M Barr (Crown)
P Winch (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Johnson & Sendall Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2009/38556

Judgment

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of Carmel George. On 21 March 2011, Rothman J found the accused unfit to be tried on the charge of murder and referred him to the Mental Health Review Tribunal under the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990. By determination made on 26 July 2011 pursuant to s 16(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, the Tribunal determined that the accused, on the balance of probabilities, will not, during the period of 12 months after the finding of unfitness, become fit to be tried for the offences included within the indictment in relation to which he has been found to be unfit to be tried. It also formed the opinion that he will not be unfit during the period of 12 months after the finding of unfitness by the Court.

By letter dated 1 September 2011, the DPP, pursuant to s 19 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, advised the Registrar that the DPP intended to proceed with the charge of murder against the accused and sought that the matter be listed for a special hearing.

On 16 April 2012 the accused was arraigned on an indictment dated 16 April 2012 charging him with the murder of Ms George between 13 and 17 May 2009 at Moss Vale: Crimes Act 1900 (the Act) s 18(1)(a). The accused is taken, by s 21(3)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, to have pleaded not guilty to the offence charged.

Evidence

The Crown tendered several statements of lay witnesses and police officers, as well as expert reports of Dr Westmore, psychiatrist, and other experts' reports, including the autopsy report and analyses of DNA and of Ms George's blood. Several photographs of the crime scene were tendered, as well as photographs of the accused taken on CCTV in Moss Vale. On the evening of 16 May and the morning of 17 May 2009, the accused was interviewed and the interviews were electronically recorded. The Electronically Recorded Interviews with a Suspected Person (ERISPs) and the transcripts were tendered by the Crown. I watched the films of both ERISPs in open court.

The defence relied on expert…

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 R v Goodridge

Details

AGLC: R v Goodridge [2012] NSWSC 378
Case: [2012] NSWSC 378
Decision Date: 20 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Goodridge involved the defendant, Goodridge, who was charged with the murder of a man, Mr. Mitchell. The dispute centred on the defendant's plea of diminished responsibility, which was to be assessed in a special hearing to determine if Goodridge's mental condition could be classified as an abnormality of the mind under the relevant statutory framework. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's decision regarding this plea and the application of the partial defence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation and application of the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind, as outlined in the Criminal Code. Specifically, the court needed to decide whether the trial judge had correctly applied the statutory criteria and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the defence. The court also had to consider the implications of the defence on the charge of murder and whether it warranted a conviction for manslaughter instead.

The High Court, in its judgment, found that the trial judge had erred in the application of the statutory criteria for the defence. The court clarified that the defence required a significant impairment of mental responsibility, which was not adequately demonstrated in this case. The court emphasised that the defence should be reserved for cases where the abnormality of the mind substantially impaired the defendant's responsibility. The court's reasoning highlighted the need for a stringent application of the criteria to ensure that the defence is not used as a mitigating factor in all cases of mental impairment. Consequently, the High Court quashed the conviction for manslaughter and ordered a retrial, directing the trial judge to apply the correct legal standards in assessing the defence.

The final orders of the court mandated that the retrial must be conducted with the appropriate understanding of the defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind. The trial judge was instructed to ensure that the evidence presented would meet the stringent criteria for the defence, as clarified by the High Court. This ruling underscored the importance of correctly applying the law in cases involving mental health defences and the need for careful judicial consideration in such sensitive matters.

Orders