Woodbridge v R [2010] NSWCCA 185

Woodbridge v R [2010] NSWCCA 185

The trial judge was correct in ruling there was no evidence capable of supporting a finding of sane automatism because the Appellant's condition was a recurring dissociative disorder amounting to a 'disease of the mind.' Thus, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Regarding sentencing, while the sentences imposed were at the lower end of the range, they were not manifestly inadequate given the Appellant's subjective circumstances.

Parties
Applicant /cross Respondent: Penelope Woodbridge; Respondent/cross Applicant: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal
Outcome
(1) Appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed. (2) Crown's appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Manslaughter by Driving, Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm, Automatism, Appeal Against Conviction, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Manslaughter by Driving Dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm Automatism Appeal Against Conviction Appeal Against Sentence

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 38 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Penelope Woodbridge

Applicant /cross Respondent

Regina

Respondent/cross Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing to leave the issue of sane automatism to the jury
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant adduced sufficient evidence for sane automatism
  3. 3 Whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was correct in ruling there was no evidence capable of supporting a finding of sane automatism because the Appellant's condition was a recurring dissociative disorder amounting to a 'disease of the mind.' Thus, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. Regarding sentencing, while the sentences imposed were at the lower end of the range, they were not manifestly inadequate given the Appellant's subjective circumstances.

Court Disposition

(1) Appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed. (2) Crown's appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Crown appeal against inadequacy dismissed.