R v Fineanganafo (No 1) [2024] NSWSC 1400

R v Fineanganafo (No 1) [2024] NSWSC 1400

Accepting the unanimous expert psychiatric evidence, and there being no evidence casting doubt on it, the accused was suffering from a mental health impairment (schizophrenia) at the relevant times and did not know his acts were wrong as required by s 28 of the Act; thus, on each count, the defence of mental health impairment was established and a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is appropriate.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown; Accused: Jordan James Fineanganofo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Special Verdict Application Under S 31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (nsw) Prior to Jury Trial
Outcome
Special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible returned on all counts
Legal Topics
Defence of Mental Health Impairment, Special Verdicts, Forensic Patient Orders
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Defence of Mental Health Impairment Special Verdicts Forensic Patient Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

Jordan James Fineanganofo

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Special Verdict Application Under S 31 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (nsw) Prior to Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused suffered from a mental health impairment at the time of the offences within the meaning of s 28 Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the accused did not know his acts were wrong due to mental health impairment
  3. 3 Whether a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible should be entered on all counts

Ratio Decidendi

Accepting the unanimous expert psychiatric evidence, and there being no evidence casting doubt on it, the accused was suffering from a mental health impairment (schizophrenia) at the relevant times and did not know his acts were wrong as required by s 28 of the Act; thus, on each count, the defence of mental health impairment was established and a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible returned on all counts

Orders

  • In relation to each count on the indictment, I return a special verdict of act proven but not criminally responsible.