Legal Research
Cases
R v Archer

R v Archer

Case [2021] NSWSC 1485 18 November 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Archer [2021] NSWSC 1485
Hearing dates: 28 October 2021
Date of orders: 18 November 2021
Decision date: 18 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 19 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – sentence after trial – single stab wound – assessment of objective criminality – unplanned attack – no intention to kill – where offender armed with knife – deterrence – offender motivated by anger – blamed victim for theft of property – where offender previously convicted of wound with intent – relevance of criminal history – mitigating factors – where based on history provided by offender – offender unreliable and self-serving historian – hearsay evidence not accepted on balance – facilitation of the course of justice – small reduction in sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) s 4
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 23, 23A, 44, 54A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 4(2)

Cases Cited:
Adegoke v R [2013] NSWCCA 193; (2013) 234 A Crim R 280
Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322; (2020) 103 NSWLR 806
Ghamraoui v R [2009] NSWCCA 111
Hoare v The Queen [1989] HCA 33; (1989) 167 CLR 348
Higgins v R [2020] NSWCCA 169
Khudadadi v R [2021] NSWCCA 259
R v Brooks (No.5) [2017] NSWSC 824
R v Do (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 512
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Johnson [2015] NSWSC 31
R v M.A.K; R v M.S.K. [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Ruttley (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1582
R v Spinks [2021] NSWSC 649
R v Sumpton(No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
R v Wood [2014] NSWCCA 184; (2014) 244 A Crim R 501
Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Van Der Baan v R [2012] NSWCCA 5
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Richard Archer
Representation:
Counsel:
G Harrison (Regina)
T Anderson SC (Archer)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Regina)
O'Brien Solicitors (Archer)

File Number(s): 2020/00051022
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Around midnight on 16 February 2020, the offender, Richard Archer, entered into or approached a neighbour’s home unit at the Kendall Building in Redfern. He was, on all accounts, in a highly agitated state and armed with a knife. The victim, David Bradshaw, had the misfortune of arriving at the same unit a few minutes later. Mr Archer believed that Mr Bradshaw was…

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 Archer

Details

AGLC: R v Archer [2021] NSWSC 1485
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1485
Decision Date: 18 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the accused was convicted of murder following a fatal stabbing incident. The victim, who had a single stab wound, died as a result of the attack. The offender was armed with a knife during the incident, and while there was no premeditation or intent to kill, the attack was unplanned and motivated by anger towards the victim, who was wrongly accused of stealing property. The offender had a prior criminal history, which included a previous conviction for wounding with intent. The court had to assess the objective criminality of the offence, considering both the deterrence aspect and the offender's motivation at the time of the incident.

The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the objective criminality of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the attack. The court also had to consider the offender's criminal history, the mitigating factors presented, and the relevance of the offender's account of events, which was deemed unreliable and self-serving. The court had to balance these factors, including the use of hearsay evidence, in order to reach a just outcome.

The court found that the offence was of high objective criminality, taking into account the use of a knife and the fatal outcome. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors, such as the lack of premeditation and the offender's anger-driven motivation. The court found the offender's history to be relevant but did not accept the hearsay evidence provided by the offender as it was considered unreliable. The court also acknowledged the offender's facilitation of the course of justice, which resulted in a small reduction in the sentence. The court ultimately determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors and the offender's cooperation with the authorities.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also considered the offender's cooperation with the authorities, which resulted in a small reduction in the sentence.

Orders