R v Guode - [2017] VSC 285

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0107

THE QUEEN
v
AKON GUODE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	8, 9 March & 7 April 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 May 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Guode
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 285

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Murder – Infanticide – Attempted murder of surviving child - Pleas of guilty – Mother causing the death of three children – Background of deprivation - Mental state – Verdins principles – Common ground that some principles apply – Evidence of mood disorder – Evidence of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – Remorse - Plea signifies some remorse – Unwillingness to acknowledge intention - Prospect of Deportation – Refugee – Difficult and traumatic history in South Sudan – Life imprisonment, whether appropriate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms. K. Judd QC with Mr K. Doyle	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. M. Dempsey with Mr S. Tovey	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Akon Guode, on 16 January 2017 in this Court, before Weinberg JA, you pleaded guilty to two charges of murder, one charge of attempted murder and one charge of infanticide. These offences were committed by you on 8 April 2015 at Wyndham Vale when you deliberately drove your vehicle into Lake Gladman. That resulted in the drowning death of three of your children despite the efforts of those who tried to rescue them.

The children who died were Bol Manyang aged 17 months, Madit Manyang and Hangar Manyang both aged four years. The child Aluel Chabiet, then aged five years, survived and is the subject of the charge of attempted murder.

Notwithstanding the various personal, historical and psychological pressures you were under at the time which I acknowledge were significant, the real reason for your actions on this day are, in many respects, a tragic mystery and have not been explained by you. As in other similar cases, this case tests the sympathy and compassion of the community. People want to understand why you did what you did because, particularly for parents of young children, such action is foreign and unthinkable. In my opinion, your actions were a product of extreme desperation rather than any form of vengeance of a kind that has arisen in other cases of parents killing their children.[1]
[1]See R v Mihayo [2014] VSC 652; R v Acar [2011] VSC 310; R v Freeman [2011[ VSC 139; R v Farquharson [2010] 462; R v Liao [2015] VSC 730.

You were not charged in relation to these matters until 10 August 2015 some four months after the offences were committed. It was not until almost a year later that a committal hearing was held in the Magistrates Court in June 2016. The matter stood as a contested trial as at a final directions hearing before me in December 2016. Dr Sullivan’s report was prepared in…

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 Guode

Details

AGLC: R v Guode [2017] VSC 285
Case: [2017] VSC 285
Decision Date: 30 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Guode, the respondent was convicted for the murder of her three children and the attempted murder of a fourth child. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the primary focus was on determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to the charges. The court was tasked with assessing the circumstances surrounding the tragic events, including the respondent's mental state, background, and the potential impact of deportation.

The central legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing in murder cases, particularly in the context of infanticide and the specific circumstances of the respondent's background and mental health. The court considered whether the principles articulated in Verdins applied to this case and the extent to which the respondent's difficult and traumatic history in South Sudan, her evidence of mood disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and her remorse should be taken into account. Additionally, the court had to weigh the prospect of deportation and its impact on the respondent's potential rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court concluded that the respondent's background of deprivation and the evidence of her mental health conditions, including mood disorder and PTSD, were significant factors in understanding her actions. Although the respondent showed some remorse through her guilty plea, she was unwilling to acknowledge the full extent of her intentions. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment, considering the severity of the crimes, the vulnerability of the victims, and the respondent's potential for rehabilitation. This sentence also took into account the possibility of deportation, which could impact her ability to receive adequate mental health support and rehabilitation services.

The final orders of the court included a life sentence for the murder charges, with a non-parole period to be determined at a later date. The court emphasised the need for the respondent to receive appropriate mental health treatment while in custody and consideration for her potential deportation upon release.

Orders