R v Albert James Paddock - [2009] NSWSC 369

CITATION: R v Albert James PADDOCK [2009] NSWSC 369

HEARING DATE(S): 24 April 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
21 May 2009

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months commencing 23 May 2007 and expiring on 22 August 2011, the balance of term being 1 year and 9 months expiring on 22 May 2013; eligible for release on 22 August 2011.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – indictment for murder, plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial impairment – crown accepted in full satisfaction of indictment – sentence imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Berrier v R [2009] NSWCCA 40
R v Antaky [2007] NSWSC 1047
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Ferguson [2008] NSWSC 761
R v Hawkins [2001] NSWSC 420
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Jones (1993) 70 A Crim R 449
R v Keceski (Court of Criminal Appeal, 10 August 1993, unreported)
R v Keir [2004] NSWCCA 106
R v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Vachalec (1981) NSWLR 351
Regina v Connolly [2001] NSWSC 787
Regina v Mabbott [2002] NSWSC 502
Salah v R [2009] NSWCCA 2
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Albert James Paddock (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/13628

COUNSEL: L Carr (Crown)
P Winch (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

ROTHMAN J

21 MAY 2009

2008/13628 R v Albert James PADDOCK
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Albert James Paddock was charged with the murder of his partner, Barbara Ingram. On 26 February 2009, Mr Paddock pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter, which plea was accepted by the Crown, in full discharge of the indictment. As I will shortly set out, the facts make clear that the basis of the plea of manslaughter is substantial impairment of mind.

Facts

2 There is a statement of agreed facts, which I summarise in the following way. Mr Paddock is 80 years of age and was 78 at the date of the offence (22 May 2007). Ms Ingram was 70 years of age on the date that Mr Paddock killed her. Their relationship had commenced in about 1987 or 1988. The couple lived in a relocatable home at Redhead Beach Holiday Park. Ms Ingram, who had a long-standing history of heart problems (Pulmonary Hypertension and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus [Lupus or SLE]), died of asphyxiation, caused by Mr Paddock suffocating the victim with his hand on her nose and mouth for some period of time with a significant degree of pressure (evidenced by associated injuries to the face).

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 R v Albert James Paddock

Details

AGLC: R v Albert James Paddock [2009] NSWSC 369
Case: [2009] NSWSC 369
Decision Date: 21 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Albert James Paddock, who was indicted for the murder of a woman. Paddock subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis that he had acted with a substantial impairment due to a mental condition at the time of the offence. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Paddock's guilty plea to manslaughter. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate level of penalty for the offence of manslaughter committed under conditions of substantial impairment. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence with the mitigating factor of Paddock's mental condition.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter and the impact of substantial impairment on culpability. It examined the circumstances of the offence, the plea agreement, and the mitigating factor of the defendant's mental condition. The court ultimately determined that, despite the substantial impairment, the offence was serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crime while also considering the mitigating circumstances of Paddock's mental condition at the time of the offence.

The court concluded that the plea of guilty and the acceptance by the Crown were sufficient grounds for the imposition of a sentence that adequately addressed the offence. The court balanced the need for punishment with the recognition of Paddock's mental impairment, resulting in a sentence that was both just and appropriate. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, particularly where a plea of guilty and mitigating circumstances are present.

Orders