R v Goonerage - [2005] ACTSC 96

R v RENNY GOONERAGE
[2005] ACTSC 96 (30 September 2005)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – grievous bodily harm – accused attacked victim with a machete – whether accused intended at the time of the attack the nature of the act and its consequences – medical and psychiatric evidence – whether the accused was, at the time of the offence, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia – whether by reason of mental dysfunction or mental illness, the accused was incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 19, 49, 290, 302, 308, 320, 321, 324
Supreme Court Act 1933(ACT) s 68C
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 184
Criminal Code2002 (ACT) ss 13, 14, 18

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
DPP v Smith [1961] AC 290
R v Campbell [1997] 2 VR 585
R v McDermott (2003) 172 FLR 1

No. SCC 39 of 2005

Judge: Spender J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 30 September 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 39 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

R

v

RENNY GOONERAGE

ORDER

Judge:  Spender J
Date:  30 September 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS:

In respect of the first count that on 29 January 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Renny Goonerage intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Adrian Paul Ford, that the accused is not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment.

In respect of the second count, namely that on 29 January 2005 at Canberra aforesaid, Renny Goonerage recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Adrian Paul Ford, that it is unnecessary to enter a verdict.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The accused be detained in custody until the tribunal orders otherwise.

THE COURT INDICATES THAT:

If the accused had not been acquitted on the grounds of mental impairment, it would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment, and nominates seven years imprisonment as the best estimate of the sentence it would have considered appropriate if the accused were a person who had been found guilty of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.

On the evening of 29 January 2005, at a unit at Havelock House that Renny Goonerage (the accused) shared with Adrian Ford (the complainant), the accused struck the complainant several times with a machete. The complainant put up his hands to protect himself, and the accused repeatedly struck him with the machete, causing, amongst other injuries, a compound fracture of the right wrist, a severed bone in his right arm and a deep laceration to his head. The charges that the accused now faces arise from that incident.

Those charges are:

… THAT on the 29^th day of January 2005 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, Renny Goonerage intentionally inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Adrian Ford.
AND FURTHER THAT on the 29^th day of January 2005 at Canberra aforesaid, Renny Goonerage recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm upon Adrian Ford.

The accused has…

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 Goonerage

Details

AGLC: R v Goonerage [2005] ACTSC 96
Case: [2005] ACTSC 96
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the accused, Renny Goonerage, was found not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment for the charge of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Adrian Ford. The sole issue before the Court was whether the accused was, at the time of the attack, incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong due to mental dysfunction or mental illness. The accused had pleaded not guilty on the grounds of mental impairment, and the prosecution agreed to the entering of a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The Court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused was incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong at the time of the attack due to his mental state. The accused was ordered to be detained in custody until the tribunal orders otherwise. If the accused had not been acquitted, the Court would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment, and the best estimate of the sentence it would have considered appropriate if the accused were a person who had been found guilty of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Adrian Paul Ford is seven years imprisonment.

The legal issues the Court was required to decide in this case were whether the accused was, at the time of the attack, incapable of knowing what he was doing or incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong due to mental dysfunction or mental illness, and whether the accused was entitled to be acquitted on the grounds of mental impairment. The Court found that the accused was, at the time of the attack, incapable of understanding that what he was doing was wrong due to his mental state, and that the accused was entitled to be acquitted on the grounds of mental impairment. The Court ordered that the accused be detained in custody until the tribunal orders otherwise and indicated that if the accused had not been acquitted, it would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The best estimate of the sentence the Court would have considered appropriate if the accused were a person who had been found guilty of the offence of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Adrian Paul Ford is seven years imprisonment.

Orders