Legal Research
Cases
R v Anderson

R v Anderson

Case [2016] NSWSC 399 8 April 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anderson [2016] NSWSC 399
Hearing dates: 16-17 November 2015; 26 February 2016; 10 March 2016
Date of orders: 08 April 2016
Decision date: 08 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hall J
Decision:
The offender is convicted of the offence of manslaughter.
Sentence:
(1) A term of imprisonment of 12 years 9 months comprising a non-parole period of 9 years 6 months commencing on 3 August 2013 and concluding on 2 February 2023;
(2) With a balance of term of 3 years 3 months expiring on 2 May 2026.
The offender will become eligible for release on parole when the non-parole period expires on 2 February 2023.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – manslaughter – offence of excessive defence manslaughter – perception of circumstances by the offender – belief of need to act in self-defence – deceased partner (the victim) approached with knife subsequent to aggression and violent conduct of the offender – deceased’s actions did not constitute provocation but were responsive to offender’s conduct – offender grabbed knife from deceased and inflicted fatal stab wound – changed circumstances relevant to the gross disproportion of the offender’s response to deceased’s actions – offence of excessive self-defence manslaughter involved a high order of objective criminality
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Aslett v R [2006] NSWCCA 360
Grant v R [2014] NSWCCA 67
Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336
Markarian v The Queen (2005) HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pitts v R [2014] NSWCCA 244
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 December 1985, unreported)
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Edigarov [2001] 125 A Crim R 551
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302
R v Hillsley [2006] NSSWCCA 312
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120 at [227]
R v Moysten [2004] NSWCCA 97
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; 134 A Crim R 174
R v Pennisi [2001] NSWCCA 326
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; 127 A Crim R 369
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
R v Weinman (1987) 49 SASR 248
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
Van Der Bann v R [2012] NSWCCA 5
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher John Anderson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Lydiard (Crown)
C Waterstreet (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers Inc (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/235869

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender, Christopher John Anderson, was charged that on 3 August 2013 he did murder of Allira Green. On 3 November 2014, the offender was committed for trial by the Central Local Court to this Court. On 6…

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 Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2016] NSWSC 399
Case: [2016] NSWSC 399
Decision Date: 08 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Anderson was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Anderson, was charged with manslaughter after fatally stabbing his partner. The deceased had approached Anderson with a knife after he had engaged in aggressive and violent conduct. The defence was based on the claim of excessive self-defence, arguing that Anderson believed he needed to act in self-defence due to the deceased's actions. The court was required to determine whether Anderson's perception of the circumstances and his belief in the need for self-defence were reasonable and if his response was grossly disproportionate to the deceased's actions.

The legal issues before the court were whether Anderson's actions constituted excessive self-defence and if his perception of the need for self-defence was reasonable. The court considered the principle that the deceased's actions, although responsive to Anderson's conduct, did not constitute provocation. The court also examined the changed circumstances relevant to the proportionality of Anderson's response, particularly the fact that he grabbed the knife from the deceased and inflicted the fatal stab wound. The court needed to balance the objective assessment of the criminality involved with the subjective perception of the offender.

The court found that Anderson's perception of the need for self-defence was not reasonable, given the circumstances. While the deceased's approach with a knife was responsive to Anderson's earlier aggressive conduct, it did not rise to the level of provocation. The court held that Anderson's response was grossly disproportionate, as he had grabbed the knife from the deceased and inflicted the fatal wound. The offence of excessive self-defence manslaughter involved a high order of objective criminality, and the court concluded that Anderson's actions were not justified under the defence of self-defence. Consequently, Anderson was found guilty of manslaughter.

The court sentenced Anderson to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the objective criminality involved. The precise term of imprisonment was not specified in the text, but the court's decision indicated a serious punishment for the manslaughter committed under the guise of excessive self-defence. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of distinguishing between reasonable self-defence and excessive self-defence in cases involving fatal violence.

Orders