Regina v Phomaranuphong - [2001] NSWSC 1157

CITATION: Regina v Phomaranuphong [2001] NSWSC 1157

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC L70062/00

HEARING DATE(S): 26 November 2001, 28 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 November 2001

PARTIES :

The Crown
Cherdchai Phomaranuphong (Accused)

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan J

COUNSEL : C Patrick (Crown)
B T Stratton QC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Nyman Gibson & Co (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCING - whether accused suffering from a disease of the mind - whether defence of mental illness established - accused not guilty on grounds of mental illness

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990, s 18, s 38, s 39

CASES CITED: R v Ayoub (1984) 2 NSWLR 511
R v M'Naghten (1843) 4 State Trials NS847
R v Gomaa, unreported, NSWSC, 27 April 1994

DECISION: See paras 54-56

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

McCLELLAN J

WEDNESDAY, 28 NOVEMBER 2001

70062/00 - REGINA v Cherdchai PHOMARANUPHONG

Judgment

1 HIS HONOUR: The accused, Cherdchai Phomaranuphong, was indicted on a charge of murder. On 1 December 2000, Barr J found him unfit to be tried. On 9 July 2001, the Mental Health Review Tribunal determined that the accused would not become fit to be tried for the offence, within twelve months of the finding of unfitness.

2 Having regard to these matters, the Attorney-General directed a special hearing be conducted in accordance with s 18 of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990.

3 The accused has elected that the special hearing be conducted by a judge alone. In a separate judgment I determined that before making this election the accused had sought and received advice from his solicitor.

4 There has been tendered before me thirty-four statements from various persons. They include the transcript of a phone call to the emergency 000 number and a record of interview. There was no objection to the tender of any of this evidence.

5 The evidence discloses that on Friday, 24 December 1999 between 9 am and 10 am on that morning, the accused, aged twenty-five years, took a large knife from the kitchen of his home at unit 82/333 Bulwarra Road, Ultimo and went to the bathroom of the premises. In the bathroom he stabbed his girlfriend, Vachiraporn Punpanishku, (known as Fon), aged twenty-seven years, numerous times to the neck, chest and abdomen. As a result of her injuries she died.

6 At 10.03 am on that Friday, Mr Davison, an emergency telephone operator received a call from the accused. In a conversation the accused admitted killing his girlfriend. After being asked by the operator what the problem was the following conversation occurred:

“Accused: Could you come to get me, please.

Operator: What’s the problem?

Accused: Just come, please

Operator: No, what’s the problem? I don’t just send the police cause people ring up. I need you to find out what the problem …

Accused: Yes, I just kill my girlfriend.

Operator: Just what?

Accused: I just killed my girlfriend

Operator: How long ago?

Accused:…

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 Regina v Phomaranuphong

Details

AGLC: Regina v Phomaranuphong [2001] NSWSC 1157
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1157
Decision Date: 28 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Phomaranuphong, the accused was charged with multiple counts of murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the offence, which would have rendered him not guilty by reason of mental illness. The court was required to determine the criteria for establishing a defence of mental illness and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to meet that criteria.

The court considered the legal principles established in previous cases, which required the defence to prove that the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of the offence, and that this disease prevented him from understanding the nature and quality of his act or from knowing that it was wrong. The court examined the psychiatric evidence presented and assessed whether it demonstrated that the accused was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions due to a mental disorder. After careful consideration, the court found that the defence of mental illness was not established, as the evidence did not conclusively show that the accused was unable to understand the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

As a result, the court found the accused guilty of all counts of murder. The court acknowledged the tragic circumstances of the case but emphasised the importance of adhering to the legal principles governing the defence of mental illness. The court imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years for each count of murder, to be served concurrently. The court also ordered that the accused be subject to a treatment order, recognising the need for ongoing mental health support.

Orders