Bennett v The King - [2025] SASCA 77

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
BENNETT v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 77
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Justice S Doyle, the Honourable Justice David and the Honourable Justice B Doyle)
17 July 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER - SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
Application for permission to appeal against sentence.

The applicant was sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years and five months, after pleading guilty to manslaughter contrary to s 13 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The applicant appeals on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Held, per the Court, granting permission to appeal, but dismissing the appeal:
1.The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 13, referred to.
Hackett v The Queen [2021] SASCA 32; R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464; R v Franklin (2012) 114 SASR 206; R v Goude (2020) 267 CLR 141; R v Hansen (2011) 206 A Crim R 54; R v Monks [2019] SASCFC 47; Western Australia v Auckram (2013) 229 A Crim R 397; Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313, considered.

BENNETT v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 77
Court of Appeal – Criminal: S Doyle JA, David JA and B Doyle AJA

THE COURT: Part of the way through his trial for the offence of murder, the appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter.[1] His plea was accepted in satisfaction of the Information.
[1] Contrary to s 13 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The plea of guilty was entered on the basis that the appellant caused the death of Mr Hillier by engaging in unlawful and dangerous acts. This involved the appellant, during an alcohol fuelled disagreement, delivering a series of blows to the face and head of the older and weaker Mr Hillier.
The judge convicted the appellant, and sentenced him to imprisonment for a period of 13 years. She fixed a non-parole period of 10 years and five months.
The appellant seeks permission to appeal against his sentence on the sole ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The sentence was said to be manifestly excessive having regard to the combined significance of several matters, including the appellant’s disadvantaged background, his low cognitive ability, and his earlier offer to plead guilty to manslaughter.
For the reasons which follow, we grant permission to appeal but dismiss the appeal.
Circumstances of the offending
The appellant and deceased met in 2019. The deceased had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and chronic pain. A fall in late 2019 escalated the severity of his ailments. Consequently, he was incapable of looking after himself. He became dependent upon the appellant for his…

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 Bennett v The King

Details

AGLC: Bennett v The King [2025] SASCA 77
Case: [2025] SASCA 77
Decision Date: 17 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bennett appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court of South Australia for the offence of manslaughter. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal concerned the severity of the sentence imposed.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying appellate intervention. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the review of sentences on appeal, including the assessment of the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The Court applied established principles of sentencing law, considering the objective seriousness of the manslaughter offence, the subjective circumstances of the appellant, including his remorse and prospects of rehabilitation, and the need to reflect community condemnation of such conduct. The Court weighed these factors against the sentencing range typically applied in similar cases. The Court ultimately found that the sentence imposed was not demonstrably outside the bounds of what was reasonably open to the sentencing judge, and therefore, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders