R v Goodlet - [2011] NZCA 357

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA269/2011
[2011] NZCA 357

BETWEEN THE QUEEN
Applicant

AND TERRI-JEAN GOODLET
Respondent

Hearing: 12 July 2011

Court: O'Regan P, Arnold and Stevens JJ

Counsel: M F Laracy for Applicant
A M Simperingham for Respondent

Judgment: 2 August 2011 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A Leave to appeal is granted.

BThe Solicitor-General’s appeal against the order made in the District Court is allowed.
CThe order made under s 34(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 is quashed.
DThe respondent is sentenced to two years intensive supervision effective from the date of this judgment.
EPursuant to s 54G and s 54I of the Sentencing Act 2002, the following special conditions will apply in addition to the standard conditions. As special conditions the respondent shall:
(a)Attend all scheduled appointments with the Consultant Psychiatrist and other Community Mental Health Services employees.
(b)Take all prescribed medication and undergo all treatment as directed by the treatment provider and Probation Officer.
(c)Undertake a psychological assessment and any further treatment if assessed as suitable as directed by the Probation Officer.
(d)Undertake training in basic work and living skills as directed by the Probation Officer.
(e)Refrain from the consumption or possession of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of the sentence of intensive supervision.
(f)Attend all counselling and other treatment for anger management and alcohol and drug addictions as directed by the Consultant Psychiatrist and the Probation Officer.

FThe respondent must report in person to a Probation Officer in the Gisborne area as soon as practicable and not later than 72 hours after the date of this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Table of Contents

Introduction  [1]
Factual background  [6]
Procedural history  [10]
The statutory context  [20]

Legislative provisions [20]
Legislative history [24]

Submissions of the parties [27]

Solicitor-General [27]
Respondent [33]

Discussion [35]

What constitutes an offence justifying orders under s 34(1)(a)? [37]

Application to this case [46]

The sentence that ought to have been given in this case [47]

What should this Court do now? [53]

Result [58]

Introduction

This is an application by the Solicitor-General for leave to appeal against an order made against the respondent, Ms Goodlet, in the District Court under s 34(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 (CPMIP). The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (by repeatedly slashing at the face of the complainant with a broken bottle) and one count of conspiring to pervert the course of justice (by deliberately misleading the police as to the role she and another had played in the bottling incident). The Solicitor-General contends that such offending was serious enough to warrant a sentence of imprisonment of around three years six months. But due to her acknowledged mental health issues, the Court imposed no sentence. The Judge ordered that the respondent should be treated…

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 Goodlet

Details

AGLC: R v Goodlet [2011] NZCA 357
Case: [2011] NZCA 357
Decision Date: 2 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Goodlet involved an appeal by the Solicitor-General against the order made in the District Court against the respondent, Terri-Jean Goodlet. The appeal was heard by O'Regan P, Arnold and Stevens JJ. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order made under s 34(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003. The Court sentenced the respondent to two years intensive supervision, effective from the date of this judgment. The Court also imposed special conditions on the respondent, including attending scheduled appointments with the Consultant Psychiatrist and other Community Mental Health Services employees, taking all prescribed medication and undergoing all treatment as directed by the treatment provider and Probation Officer, undertaking a psychological assessment and any further treatment as directed by the Probation Officer, undertaking training in basic work and living skills as directed by the Probation Officer, refraining from the consumption or possession of alcohol and illicit drugs for the duration of the sentence of intensive supervision, and attending all counselling and other treatment for anger management and alcohol and drug addictions as directed by the Consultant Psychiatrist and the Probation Officer. The Court also ordered the respondent to report in person to a Probation Officer in the Gisborne area as soon as practicable and not later than 72 hours after the date of this judgment.

Orders