Legal Research
Cases
R v Guider

R v Guider

Case [2002] NSWSC 756 28 August 2002

Murder

Breach of Trust

Unlawful Act Manslaughter

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Guider [2002] NSWSC 756

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70041/02

HEARING DATE(S): 7/6/02, 23/8/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 28 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Michael Anthony Guider

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

COUNSEL : P. Conlon SC
P. Zahra SC

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - plea of not guilty - Manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - plea of guilty - child victim - paedophilia - use of sedatives on child causing death.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6
Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Regina v Alexander NSWCCA, 24 February 1995
R v Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289
Regina v Blacklidge NSWCCA 12 December 1995
R v Hayes [2001] NSWCCA 358
Regina v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402
Regina v Maguire NSWCCA, 30 August 1995
Regina v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142
Regina v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Regina v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1968) 164 CLR 465

DECISION: Sentence of imprisonment for 17 years, to date from 7 June 2002 and to expire on 6 June 2019. Non parole period of 12 years, to date from 7 June 2002 and to expire on 6 June 2014.

- 26 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Wednesday 28 August 2002

70041/02 Regina v Michael Anthony Guider

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, who was charged with the murder, on 19 August 1986, of Samantha Terese Knight, has pleaded guilty to her manslaughter. That plea has been accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment, and he now appears for sentence.

FACTS

2 The present offence needs to be understood in the context of the prisoner’s history of having committed serious sexual offences in relation to a large number of children over a period in excess of 15 years.

3 In early 1996, 2 young children each 7 years of age, complained that the prisoner had been indecently assaulting them and taking nude photographs of them. He was, that the time, employed as a gardener at Royal North Shore Hospital.

4 On 2 and 6 February 1996, searches were made of his work shed and of his residence. Some thousands of 35 mm slides, photographs and negatives, depicting children in indecent poses and in the course of being sexually assaulted were found. Also discovered were a number of pornographic books and articles, children’s underwear and cameras, as well as various texts in relation to child abuse, incest and child photography.

5 When interviewed by police on 6 February 1996, he admitted the offences concerning the two girls which had initiated the investigation, and acknowledged having a problem in his dealings with children, specifically involving an obsession with photographing them and also with collecting underwear. In subsequent…

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 Guider

Details

AGLC: R v Guider [2002] NSWSC 756
Case: [2002] NSWSC 756
Decision Date: 28 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, Guider, who was charged with the murder of a child. The victim, a child, died after being subjected to the administration of sedatives by Guider. Guider entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of murder but admitted to manslaughter by committing an unlawful and dangerous act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the plea of manslaughter, based on the unlawful and dangerous act, was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court had to determine if the administration of sedatives to a child by Guider, who had a history of paedophilic behaviour, could be classified as an unlawful and dangerous act that led to the child's death.

The court examined the nature of the act committed by Guider, considering the administration of sedatives to a child as an inherently dangerous act. It was established that Guider had a history of paedophilic behaviour, which further underscored the unlawfulness of his actions. The court held that the act was not only unlawful but also dangerous, given the vulnerability of the child and the potential lethal consequences of administering sedatives. The court concluded that while the act was dangerous, the intention behind it was not to cause death but rather to facilitate the paedophilic behaviour. This distinction was critical in assessing whether the plea of manslaughter was appropriate.

Guider's plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted by the court. The court found that the act of administering sedatives to the child, driven by Guider's paedophilic tendencies, constituted an unlawful and dangerous act. The court determined that, despite the severe consequences, the plea of manslaughter was appropriate given the circumstances. The court acknowledged the gravity of the act and the loss of life but found that the plea of manslaughter was consistent with the evidence presented. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, taking into account the vulnerable nature of the victim and the dangerous nature of the act committed by Guider.

The court ordered that Guider be sentenced to imprisonment, with the specific term to be determined based on the severity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the death of the child. The court also noted that the sentence should reflect the need for deterrence and the protection of society from Guider's harmful actions. The final orders included that Guider be remanded in custody pending sentencing and that further proceedings be scheduled to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment.

Orders