Legal Research
Cases
Britton v The King

Britton v The King

Case [2024] NSWCCA 138 26 July 2024

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Britton v R [2024] NSWCCA 138
Hearing dates: 3 May 2024
Date of orders: 26 July 2024
Decision date: 26 July 2024
Before: Stern JA at [1];
Rothman J at [8];
Yehia J at [163]
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal.
(2)   Allow the Appeal.
(3)   Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant by the District Court on 13 April 2023.
(4)   Impose the following sentence on the applicant:
(a)   Record a conviction for 2 Counts of unlawful killing on 28 September 2019, the victims for which were Kazzandra Widders and Skye Luland.
(b)   Impose an aggregate sentence of a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing 19 January 2023 and expiring 18 April 2025 with a remainder of term of a further 2 years and 9 months, expiring 18 January 2028.
(5)   The applicant is first eligible for parole on 18 April 2025.
(6)   The applicant is warned that as a result of these offences, the State may apply for an Order under the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) by which she may, after the expiry of her sentence or after parole, be governed by supervision orders and/or continuing detention.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – manslaughter – where applicant drove motor vehicle towards victims acting in defence of her daughter – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account relevant considerations when assessing objective seriousness – relationship between objective seriousness and moral culpability – identifiable error in the sentencing exercise – applicant re-sentenced.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24
Crimes Sentencing (Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 22A, 23
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
BM v R [2019] NSWCCA 223
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director General of Department of Community Services; Re Sophie [2008] NSWCA 250
Douglass v R [2001] NSWCCA 250; (2001) 34 MVR 35
DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
Russell v R (2023) 112 NSWLR 533; [2023] NSWCCA 272
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Linda Maree Britton (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S J Odgers SC (Applicant)

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 Britton v The King

Details

AGLC: Britton v The King [2024] NSWCCA 138
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 138
Decision Date: 26 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Britton was convicted of manslaughter following an incident in which she drove her motor vehicle towards a group of people, resulting in the death of one of the victims. Britton's appeal against her sentence was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the sentencing judge had overlooked relevant factors when determining the objective seriousness of the crime and if there was an identifiable error in the sentencing process.

The court examined the sentencing judge's approach to assessing the objective seriousness of the offence and the relationship between this assessment and the moral culpability of the offender. The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the circumstances surrounding the offence, particularly the fact that Britton was acting in defence of her daughter. This oversight led to an underestimation of the objective seriousness of the crime. The court concluded that there was an identifiable error in the sentencing exercise, warranting a re-sentencing of the applicant.

In light of these findings, the High Court ordered that Britton be re-sentenced by a different judge. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensively considering all relevant factors in the sentencing process to ensure a fair and just outcome. The final orders of the court included the re-sentencing of Britton by a different judge, taking into account the previously overlooked circumstances of the case.

Orders