R v Goodridge (No 2) - [2012] NSWSC 1180

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Goodridge (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1180
Hearing dates: 21 September 2012
Decision date: 03 October 2012
Before: Adamson J
Decision:
(1) I indicate that if the special hearing involving the Forensic Patient had been a normal trial against a person fit to be tried, I would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment; and
(2) I nominate as the limiting term in respect of the Forensic Patient's offence, 18 years commencing on 16 May 2009.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - imposition of limiting term under Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act - sentencing factors relevant to the length of a limiting term - relevance of a forensic patient's mental condition to the length of a limiting term
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: - Bhuiyan v R [2009] NSWCCA 221
- Courtney v R [2007] NSWCCA 195; 172 A Crim R 371
- R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239
- R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
- R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
- R v Goodridge [2012] NSWSC 378
- R v Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394; 62 NSWLR 181
- R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120; 108 A Crim R 85
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Michael William Goodridge
Representation: Counsel:
M Barr (Crown)
P Winch (Forensic Patient)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Johnson & Sendall Solicitors (Forensic Patient)

File Number(s): 2009/38556

Judgment

Michael Goodridge (the Forensic Patient) was charged with the murder of Carmel George. Because he was found unfit to be tried, the matter proceeded by way of a special hearing.

On 16 April 2012, the Forensic Patient was arraigned on an indictment charging him with the murder of Ms George between 13 and 17 May 2009 at Moss Vale: Crimes Act 1900 s 18(1)(a). The Forensic Patient is taken, by s 21(3)(a) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (the Act), to have pleaded not guilty to the offence charged.

Following a special hearing by judge alone, I found that on the limited evidence available, the Forensic Patient murdered Ms George: R v Goodridge [2012] NSWSC 378.

Facts

The Forensic Patient lived in Moss Vale. He was well known there, both because he was often seen walking the streets with his dog, Zone, and also because of his behaviour associated with abuse of drugs and alcohol.

In May 2009 the Forensic Patient, who was then aged 52, was evicted from his Housing Commission flat due to his violence under the influence of alcohol. In response to his eviction, the Forensic Patient lay down in the middle of a road in Moss Vale, apparently with the intention of ending his life. He was struck by a car but at such a low speed that his injuries were relatively slight. Nonetheless…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Goodridge (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1180
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1180
Decision Date: 03 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Supreme Court of Victoria involved the defendant, Goodridge, who was subject to a sentence that included a limiting term under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate length of this limiting term, considering Goodridge's mental condition and other relevant sentencing factors. The primary focus was on whether the defendant's mental condition should influence the determination of the limiting term's duration.

The legal issues before the court were whether the mental condition of a forensic patient should be a primary factor in setting the length of a limiting term and, if so, to what extent. The court needed to weigh the defendant's mental condition against other relevant sentencing factors to determine an appropriate limiting term. The court was also required to consider the legislative intent behind the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act and how it interacted with the principles of sentencing under common law.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the legislative framework and relevant case law to ascertain the appropriate factors to consider when imposing a limiting term. The court concluded that while the defendant's mental condition was a significant factor, it should not be the sole determinant. The court held that other sentencing factors, such as the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation, must also be taken into account. The court found that the defendant's mental condition was indeed relevant but could not override the need to balance all relevant factors. The Supreme Court of Victoria determined that a specific length for the limiting term, considering all relevant factors, was appropriate.

The court ordered that the limiting term for Goodridge's sentence be set at a specific duration, reflecting a comprehensive consideration of the defendant's mental condition, the nature of the offence, and other relevant sentencing principles. The decision underscored the importance of a balanced approach in determining limiting terms under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act.

Orders