Problem
Case: DPP v Gargasoulas [2019] VSC 87 (22 February 2019)
A. Give a very brief summary of the facts of the offending - there is no need to recite each of sad instances of injury and/or death - just outline briefly the general nature of the events and a brief summary of what criminal offences Gargasoulas was charged with.
B. What was the psychiatric evidence in the case?
C. Why didn't Gargasoulas qualify for the defence of mental impairment under the Victorian legislation (the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) )? Would the position be any different had the crime occurred in NSW where the NSW Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act, 1990 applies?
D. What was the legal consequence of the fact that, at the time of his offending, Gargasoulas was in a psychotic state induced by his use of the drug 'ice' (crystal methamphetamine)? Would the position be any different under the relevant NSW law? (see Howard & Westmore (Lexis Nexis third edition 2018) at 6.32 and 10.3 -10.9).
E. Justice Weinberg refers to the sentencing principles in the precedent case of Verdins [2007] VSCA 102. What are these principles and how does his Honour apply them to the facts of this case? What psychiatric evidence did his Honour take into account when considering the Verdins principles? Are there similar principles applicable when sentencing offenders in NSW (see generally the discussion of the cases in Howard & Westmore at 12.5 - 12.27).
F. How did Justice Weinberg reflect the presence of mitigating factors in the sentence he imposed?
G. What relevance, if any, did Gargasoulas's past criminal record and the presence of personality disorder have to the sentencing outcome?
H. Do you think the sentence imposed was an appropriate outcome? Do you think the law should allow persons with a transient self-induced drug psychosis to rely upon the mental illness defence?