Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]; Hamill J at [81]; N Adams J at [90].
Decision:
(1) Extend the time in which the applicant may apply for leave to appeal against sentence up to and including 23 February 2022;
(2) Grant leave to appeal against sentence;
(3) Set aside the sentence imposed on Christopher Chandler on 14 December 2017;
(4) In lieu, impose a sentence of imprisonment, taking into account the offences on the Form 1, of 15 years and 8 months commencing on 12 August 2017 and expiring on 11 April 2033 with a non‑parole period of 10 years and 6 months commencing on 12 August 2017 and expiring on 11 February 2028.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – manifest excess – applicant sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 13 years – one count of manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act – offender struck and killed 18-month-old child by deliberately driving stolen car through fence of suburban home – whilst evading police pursuit and with knowledge of the appreciable risk of serious injury to persons in the backyard – offender was 22 years old and had a substantial criminal history – offender experienced a profoundly deprived and dysfunctional upbringing and suffered from serious mental health issues – whether sentence properly reflected the total criminality of the offender’s conduct – relevant factors on sentence – sentencing statistics – where reference made to “comparable cases” – where offender received second highest manslaughter sentence for single offence since relevant statistics have been recorded – where offender received highest sentence for vehicular manslaughter since relevant statistics have been recorded – where offender’s sentence is broadly comparable with murder sentences where murder weapon was a motor vehicle – relevant factors on sentence –whether sentencing judge erred in concluding that offence was at the “gravest end of the spectrum” – held no error – finding not to be equated with finding that the offence was in the “worst category” of offending – offender’s mental health had no bearing upon assessment of objective seriousness – whether sentencing judge erred in only allowing 5% discount for late plea of guilty – held no error – whether sentencing judge erred in application of Bugmy principles and consideration of applicant’s mental illness and you – held no error – whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive – held by a majority manifest excess established – appeal allowed – offender re-sentenced
[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 Chandler v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Chandler v R [2023] NSWCCA 59
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 59
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chandler v R is a case involving the applicant, Chandler, who was convicted of manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act. Chandler deliberately drove a stolen car through the fence of a suburban home, striking and killing an 18-month-old child. The incident occurred while Chandler was evading police pursuit, with full knowledge of the appreciable risk of causing serious injury to persons in the backyard. The High Court of Australia heard Chandler’s appeal against the sentence imposed, which was 19 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years. The central legal issues in this case were whether the sentence imposed properly reflected the total criminality of Chandler’s conduct, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentencing judge erred in various aspects of the sentencing process, including the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence, the discount for a late plea of guilty, and the consideration of Chandler's mental illness.
The court meticulously examined the sentencing principles and relevant factors, taking into account Chandler’s substantial criminal history, his profoundly deprived and dysfunctional upbringing, and his serious mental health issues. The court noted that Chandler's sentence was the second highest for manslaughter since relevant statistics have been recorded and the highest for vehicular manslaughter. The court also considered that the sentence was broadly comparable with murder sentences where the murder weapon was a motor vehicle. The court found no error in the sentencing judge’s assessment that the offence was at the gravest end of the spectrum, clarifying that this finding did not equate to the offence being in the worst category of offending. The court further found no error in the 5% discount for Chandler's late plea of guilty, and in the application of Bugmy principles and consideration of his mental illness. However, the court concluded by a majority that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the re-sentencing of the offender.
In conclusion, the High Court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and allowed the appeal. The court re-sentenced Chandler, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the offender's background. This decision underscores the importance of balancing the severity of the crime with the individual circumstances of the offender in the sentencing process.