Tasmania v Woodward - [2025] TASSC 15

[2025] TASSC 15

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Woodward [2025] TASSC 15
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
WOODWARD, Brett William
FILE NO:	721/2022
DELIVERED ON:	26 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:	13 and 20 March 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure - Trial had before judge without jury – Generally – Accused charged with

committing assault contrary to s 184 of the Criminal Code – Defence of insanity.

Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) ss 16, 184, 361AA, 381.
R v Porter [1933] HCA 1, [1936] 55 CLR 182, The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30, followed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3164]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: A Sharma and C Darvell
Respondent: M Doyle

Solicitors:

Appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: M Doyle

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 15
Number of paragraphs:	21

Serial No 15/2025 File No 721/2022

STATE OF TASMANIA v BRETT WILLIAM WOODWARD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
26 March 2025

1 The accused is charged on indictment with one count of assault contrary to s 184 of the Criminal Code. He has entered a plea of not guilty. In accordance with an order made by me pursuant to s 361AA of the Criminal Code, I conducted the trial as a single judge in place of a trial by jury.

Presumption of innocence and burden of proof

2 The accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Accordingly, he is presumed to be innocent of this crime unless and until I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
3 In this case, it is common ground that if I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the act which is alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment, then the question of insanity arises on the evidence in respect of the accused's criminal responsibility for that act. By s 15 of the Criminal Code, the accused is presumed to have been of sound mind at the time that he committed the relevant act, until the contrary is proved. The onus of establishing that he is not criminally responsible for the act on the basis of the insanity provisions of s 16, accordingly falls on the accused. It can, however, be established on the evidence presented by the prosecution, s 381 of the Criminal Code. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, see s 141(2) of the Evidence Act 2001.

The alleged crime

4 The indictment alleges that the accused unlawfully assaulted his cousin, Keira Rigby on 9 September 2022, by grabbing her around the neck with one hand, applying pressure and holding a knife to her throat. There is no dispute that he committed these acts. The evidence as to this in the prosecution case, consisted entirely of agreed facts, statutory declarations…

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 Tasmania v Woodward

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Woodward [2025] TASSC 15
Case: [2025] TASSC 15
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tasmania v Woodward, the defendant was brought before the Court on charges of committing an assault as per section 184 of the Criminal Code. The defendant contested the charge by asserting the defence of insanity. The trial was presided over by a judge without the involvement of a jury. The primary focus of the case was to determine the validity of the insanity defence and its implications on the defendant's culpability.

The court had to consider whether the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence met the legal criteria for insanity as defined in relevant case law. This involved a detailed examination of the defendant's mental health history, expert psychiatric evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged assault. The court's task was to ascertain if the defendant was unable to understand the nature of the act or its wrongfulness due to a mental disorder.

After carefully evaluating the evidence presented, the court concluded that the defendant did not meet the threshold for the insanity defence. The court found that the defendant was aware of the nature and consequences of the assault, thereby holding them accountable for their actions. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty as charged. The final orders of the court included sentencing the defendant in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code.

Orders