(1) For the manslaughter of Felipe Flores, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 13 years and 3 months, commencing 21 October 2012, with a non-parole period of 9 years and 11 months.
(2) The earliest date upon which the offender is eligible for release on parole is 20 September 2022.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter - guilty plea directly contradicted offender's evidence in his previous trial - key witness inaccurate about sequence of events but otherwise reliable - offender inflicted grievous bodily harm upon deceased upon discovering deceased was HIV positive - minor provocation in circumstances where offender made no inquiry as to the HIV status of the deceased and offender was prepared to engage in sexual acts not knowing whether person had HIV - objectively serious offence having regard to brutality of assault and relatively minor provocation - statistical analysis of sentences imposed for manslaughter unhelpful given their varied factual nature - no adverse movement of sentencing practices since commission of crime in 1991 established - no concurrence appropriate with sentence for unrelated offences of sexual intercourse without consent - lack of remorse - offender not entitled to leniency given offender's criminal history before and after his killing of deceased - low prospects of rehabilitation given offender's subjective circumstances - small utilitarian value of guilty plea due to its timing - offender's institutionalisation by reason of lengthy incarceration not a special circumstance
New South Wales, Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Sentenced Homicides in New South Wales: 1990-1993, (June 1995)
Category:
Sentence
Parties:
Regina Paul Darcey Armstrong (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel: K McKay (Crown) J Nicholson SC (Offender) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (Offender)
File Number(s):
2007/63851
Publication restriction:
Nil
Judgment
Introduction
On 9 April 2014 the offender, Paul Armstrong, was arraigned on an indictment dated 8 April 2014 charging him with the murder of Felipe Flores at Woolloomooloo on 2 September 1991 and the felonious slaying of Felipe Flores. On 9 April 2014 the offender entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter which was accepted in full discharge of the indictment. The basis on which the plea was accepted was manslaughter by reason of provocation.
Prior to the entry of the plea, the…
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 Armstrong
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Armstrong [2014] NSWSC 700
Case
[2014] NSWSC 700
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Armstrong involved the defendant, Armstrong, who was convicted of manslaughter following a guilty plea that directly contradicted his evidence in a previous trial. Armstrong had inflicted grievous bodily harm on the deceased, who was HIV positive, upon discovering this fact. The case came before the court to determine an appropriate sentence. The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were the appropriate sentencing considerations for manslaughter, taking into account the brutality of the assault, the minor provocation, and the offender's criminal history and prospects of rehabilitation.
The court found that the offender's conduct was objectively serious, given the brutality of the assault and the relatively minor provocation. Although the key witness was inaccurate about the sequence of events, they were otherwise reliable. The court noted that a statistical analysis of sentences for manslaughter was unhelpful due to the varied factual nature of such cases. The court also considered that there had been no adverse movement in sentencing practices since the offence was committed in 1991. In terms of concurrence, the court determined that the sentence for the unrelated offences of sexual intercourse without consent should not be taken into account. The court further considered the offender's lack of remorse, criminal history, and low prospects of rehabilitation. The court found that the offender was not entitled to leniency due to their criminal history before and after the killing of the deceased. The small utilitarian value of the guilty plea, due to its timing, and the offender's institutionalisation by reason of lengthy incarceration were not considered special circumstances.
The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for Armstrong's manslaughter conviction was imprisonment for a period of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years. The court also ordered that Armstrong's sentences for the unrelated offences of sexual intercourse without consent be served concurrently.