R v Peterson (No. 5) - [2014] NSWSC 1080

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Peterson (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 1080
Hearing dates: 6 August 2014
Decision date: 06 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1)Under s 24 of the Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act I refer Mr Peterson to the Mental Health Review Tribunal in light of the limiting term I have nominated.
(2)I order that in accordance with the previous order of the Mental Health Review Tribunal he be held in custody in an appropriate correctional centre until further assessment by the tribunal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - special hearing - imposition of limiting term - manslaughter - substantial impairment by way of abnormality of the mind - where offender beat deceased with a bat - where offender suffered from intellectual disability
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229; (2012) 227 A Crim R 217
R v Blacklidge (unreported, NSWCCA 12 December 1995)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Goodridge (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1180
R v Mailes [2004] NSWCCA 394
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Queen (Crown)
John Francis Peterson (Accused)
Representation: Counsel: C Maxwell QC (Crown)
C Smith (Accused)
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2012/173835

extempore Judgment

Earlier today, after special hearing under the provisions of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), I found the accused not guilty of the murder of Rafik Makaradi but on the limited evidence available in the special hearing found that he committed the offence of the manslaughter of Rafik Makaradi on 30th May 2012. I am now required under the provisions of the legislation to nominate what is referred to as a limiting term.

The provisions of the legislation relevant to this task were summarised by Adamson J in R v Goodridge (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1180 at [24]-[27] in the following terms:

A verdict that the Forensic Patient committed the offence charged (s 22(1)(c)) is a "qualified finding of guilt" made in the absence of a conviction (s 22(3)(a)). Accordingly, by reason of s 23(1)(a), the court must indicate whether, if the special hearing had been a normal trial, it would have imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Section 23(1)(b) of the Act defines limiting term as:

... the best estimate of the sentence the Court would have considered appropriate if the special hearing had been a normal trial of criminal proceedings against a person who was fit to be tried for that offence and the person had been found guilty of that offence.

The effect of s 23(1)(b) of the Act is that the court is obliged, when determining a limiting term, to adopt and apply all the statutory and common law principles of sentencing that apply to the sentencing…

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 Peterson (No. 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Peterson (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 1080
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1080
Decision Date: 06 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant, Peterson, was convicted of manslaughter and brought before the court for consideration of a special hearing to determine whether a limiting term should be imposed. The victim of the offence, who was fatally beaten with a bat, was a fellow inmate at the correctional facility where Peterson was held. The court was tasked with deciding whether Peterson’s substantial impairment by way of abnormality of the mind should be considered in the sentencing phase, given his intellectual disability.

The legal issue before the court was whether Peterson's intellectual disability constituted an abnormality of the mind that substantially impaired his mental responsibility for the offence. The court needed to consider the nature and extent of Peterson’s intellectual disability, as well as the extent to which it contributed to his actions. The court also had to weigh the mitigating factor of Peterson’s intellectual disability against the gravity of the offence.

The court found that Peterson's intellectual disability, which fell within the category of a cognitive impairment, did indeed constitute an abnormality of the mind. This was supported by expert evidence and the defendant’s history. The court determined that the intellectual disability substantially impaired Peterson’s mental responsibility, leading to a significant reduction in his culpability. Given the substantial impairment and the mitigating nature of the disability, the court imposed a limiting term on the sentence. This term reflected the reduced culpability due to Peterson's intellectual disability.

Orders