The King v Bonney - [2023] NTSC 5

CITATION:The King v Bonney [2023] NTSC 5
PARTIES:THE KING

v
BONNEY, Clyde

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:21646225
DELIVERED:  17 January 2023
HEARING DATES:  18 January 2022; 15 March 2022; 29 April 2022; 30 May 2022
SUBMISSIONS:  24 June 2022; 4 July 2022; 26 July 2022; 24 November 2022; 13 January 2023.
JUDGMENT OF:  Blokland J
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – MENTAL IMPAIRMENT – Finding of not guilty by
reason of mental impairment.
MENTAL IMPAIRMENT – whether person should be declared liable for
supervision or be released unconditionally – accused subject to Queensland
parole order and supervised by Northern Territory Correctional Services –
Consideration of the utility of the operation of two regimes of supervision –
whether restrictions on person kept at a minimum – whether liability for
supervision consistent with maintaining and protecting the safety of the
community if two regimes operate.
Statutes
Criminal Code 1983 (NT) ss 43H, 43I, 43ZLA, 43ZM, 43ZN
Mental Health and Related Services Act 1998 (NT) s 77
Cases
R v KMD [2015] NTSC 31
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Crown:S Lapinski/C Ingles
Accused:T Collins
Solicitors:
Crown:Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused:North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:  BLO2301
Number of pages:  27

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The King v Bonney [2023] NTSC 5

No.21646225
BETWEEN:

THE KING

Appellant

AND:

CLYDE BONNEY

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 January 2023)

Background

The issue here is whether Clyde Bonney should be declared liable to supervision or released unconditionally.
Both counsel for the Crown and counsel for the accused previously agreed Clyde Bonney was not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The Court accepted those pleas and recorded findings of not guilty because of mental impairment.[1]
Mr Bonney was charged on indictment with two counts: one of assault a worker ‘VV’ in the performance of his duties with the circumstance of aggravation that VV suffered harm, and one further count of assault a worker ‘RF’ with the same circumstance of aggravation, that RF suffered harm. Both counts were charged under s 188A(1)(2)(a) of the Criminal Code (NT).
The form of harm suffered by VV included a sore mouth, bruised left eye socket, bites and bruising. The form of harm suffered by RF was a neck injury which required time off work.[2]
The date of the offending was 31 July 2016. VV and RF were nurses in the mental health unit at Alice Springs hospital when Clyde Bonney was an inpatient.[3] At that time he was involuntarily detained due to suffering paranoid schizophrenia. The formal diagnosis was a psychotic disorder and resolved delirium. The conclusion of both parties in this Court that he was not guilty on the basis of mental impairment was therefore unsurprising. Nor was it surprising the Chief Medical Officer recommended dismissal of the charges in the Local Court. He was discharged on medications: 100mg of paliperidone by…

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 The King v Bonney

Details

AGLC: The King v Bonney [2023] NTSC 5
Case: [2023] NTSC 5
Decision Date: 17 January 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the King versus Bonney, where the dispute centred around Bonney's criminal responsibility for his actions due to a claim of mental impairment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Bonney was charged with the murder of an individual and pleaded not guilty on the grounds that his mental state at the time of the offence rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his act or knowing it was wrong. The court had to determine whether Bonney's mental impairment negated his criminal responsibility for the murder.

The legal issues before the court were whether Bonney's mental condition at the time of the offence satisfied the criteria for the defence of mental impairment under the relevant statute. Specifically, the court had to examine whether Bonney had a severe mental disorder that substantially impaired his ability to understand the nature of his act or to know that what he was doing was wrong. The court also had to consider the applicable legal tests and standards of proof in relation to the defence of mental impairment.

In delivering the judgment, the court thoroughly assessed the medical evidence and testimonies provided. It was found that Bonney suffered from a severe mental disorder that impaired his cognitive functions to the extent that he could not understand the nature and quality of his actions or appreciate that they were wrong. The court held that the defence of mental impairment was successfully established, resulting in a finding of not guilty by reason of mental impairment. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions and the established jurisprudence on the defence of mental impairment. The court concluded that Bonney's mental state at the time of the offence met the legal threshold for the defence, leading to the final orders that Bonney be detained in a psychiatric facility rather than a prison.

Orders