AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 20 April 2012

R v Goodridge

[2012] NSWSC 378

Homicide
CRIME MURDER SPECIAL HEARING

Citation: R v Goodridge [2012] NSWSC 378
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 20 April 2012
Judge: Adamson J

Background

The accused was charged with the murder of a woman at a disused railway barracks in Moss Vale in May 2009. The victim had been staying with the accused at the barracks, apparently out of concern for his welfare following a road accident days earlier. During the night, the accused made unwelcome sexual advances toward the victim and, when she did not respond positively, became violent and inflicted injuries from which she died.

In March 2011, Rothman J found the accused unfit to stand trial. The Mental Health Review Tribunal subsequently determined that the accused would not become fit to be tried within 12 months of that finding. The Director of Public Prosecutions elected to proceed under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, and the matter was listed for a special hearing before Adamson J sitting alone.

Because the accused was unfit to be tried, he was taken by statute to have pleaded not guilty. The parties agreed to waive the rules of evidence, with the accused's counsel confirming the requisite advice had been given. Expert psychiatric and psychological reports were tendered by both the Crown and the defence, alongside witness statements, electronically recorded interviews with the accused, forensic reports, and CCTV footage.

  • Whether, on the limited evidence available at a special hearing, the accused committed the offence of murder under s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Whether the partial defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 was established, which would reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter.
  • Whether the procedures adopted at the special hearing, including waiver of the rules of evidence, were consistent with s 21(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990.

Decision

Adamson J found on the evidence that the accused had committed the offence of murder. The accused's own electronically recorded interviews contained admissions that he had wanted to hurt the victim and "teach her a lesson" for rejecting his sexual advances. The injuries inflicted were described by the court as horrendously violent and savage, involving a substantial and determined use of force that violated and denigrated the victim in a brutal and degrading way.

The court then considered the partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900. Because this was a special hearing conducted by judge alone, Adamson J was required to assess the question in the absence of a jury, bearing in mind that manslaughter is treated as a less serious offence than murder and attracts less community blame and condemnation. Consistent with s 23A(2), opinion evidence from the psychiatrists and psychologist was not taken into account on this question, as such evidence is inadmissible on the ultimate issue of whether the partial defence is made out.

The accused failed to discharge the onus of establishing that any reduction in blame was warranted. Adamson J found that even if the partial defence had otherwise been made out on its threshold elements, she would not have considered it sufficient to warrant reducing the accused's liability from murder to manslaughter. The circumstances, including the victim's presence at the barracks out of concern for the accused and the nature and extent of the violence inflicted, weighed heavily against any reduction.

Orders Made

• The accused is found guilty of murder
• The partial defence of substantial impairment under s 23A(1)(a) of the Act is not made out
• Liability for murder is not reduced to manslaughter

Key Takeaways

  • At a special hearing under the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, where the accused is unfit to be tried and no election is made for a jury, the judge alone determines whether the accused committed the offence and whether any partial defence applies.
  • Under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900, the partial defence of substantial impairment requires the accused to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that any lessening of blame and condemnation is warranted. The Supreme Court found the accused did not discharge that onus here.
  • Section 23A(2) renders psychiatric and psychological opinion evidence inadmissible on the ultimate question of whether the partial defence is made out. The judge must assess that question independently of such expert opinion.
  • Waiving the rules of evidence at a special hearing is permissible under s 190 of the Evidence Act 1995, provided the accused's lawyer has given the requisite advice. This procedure is consistent with s 21(1) of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, as confirmed in R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505.
  • Even where all threshold elements of the substantial impairment defence might otherwise be established, the court retains the task of assessing whether the nature and circumstances of the offending are such that a reduction from murder to manslaughter is warranted.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 23A
- Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), ss 16(1), 19, 21(1), 21(3)(a), 21A(1)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 184, 190

Cases
- R v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505; 54 NSWLR 1