Legal Research
Cases
R v Barton

R v Barton

Case [2007] NSWSC 651 29 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Barton [2007] NSWSC 651

HEARING DATE(S): 01/09/2006, 29/9/2006, 26/10/2006, 23/3/2007, 11/05/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: In respect of count 1, the manslaughter of M., sentenced to a fixed term of 5 years imprisonment to commence on 13 September 2004 and to expire on 12 September 2009. In respect of count 3, the attempted murder of J., sentenced to a fixed term of 13 years imprisonment to commence on 13 March 2006 and to expire on 12 March 2017. In respect of count 2, the murder of N., sentenced to a non-parole period of 30 years to commence on 13 September 2009 and to expire on 12 September 2039 with the total term being one of 37 years which will expire on 12 September 2046. The overall effective non-parole period is thus one of 35 years and the effective total term is one of 42 years. The first date on which you will be eligible for parole will be 12 September 2039.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - offences of murder, attempted murder and manslaughter - Manslaughter by way of provocation - offender subjected to blackmail and threats by deceased over many years - offender sets fire to premises in which deceased's young children are asleep - one child dies - offender rescues other child - Murder - whether it falls within "worst category of offence" - whether maximum penalty should be imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Adanguidi v R [2006] NSWCCA 404
Johnson v R (2004) 205 ALR 346
Knight v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141
R v Andrews (2006) 160 A Crim R 505
R v Apps [2006] NSWCCA 290
R v Aslett [2006] NSWCCA 360
R v Cheatham [2002] NSWCCA 360
R v Durocher-Yvon (2003) 58 NSWLR 581
R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v Folbigg (2005) 152 A Crim R 35
R v Fraser [2004] NSWSC 53
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v McDonald (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1995)
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
R v Park [2003] NSWCCA 142
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Sievers (2004) 151 A Crim R 426
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v SLD (2003) 58 NSWLR 589
R v Tiwary [2006] NSWSC 1156
R v Trevenna (2004) 149 A Crim R 505
R v Troja (unreported, NSWCCA, 16 July 1991)
R v Velevski NSWSC unreported 26 September 1997
R v Villa [2005] NSWCCA 4
R v Wallace [2007] NSWCCA…

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 Barton

Details

AGLC: R v Barton [2007] NSWSC 651
Case: [2007] NSWSC 651
Decision Date: 29 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Barton involved the defendant, Barton, who was charged with murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter. The dispute centred around Barton's actions after enduring years of blackmail and threats from the deceased, who was his former partner. In a fit of rage, Barton set fire to the premises where the deceased's young children were sleeping, resulting in the death of one child and serious injuries to the other. Barton rescued the surviving child from the fire. Barton was convicted of manslaughter by way of provocation, murder, and attempted murder. The legal issues before the court were whether Barton's actions constituted the worst category of murder warranting the maximum penalty, and if manslaughter by way of provocation was applicable in this case.

The court considered the nature of Barton's offences and the circumstances leading up to the tragic incident. The defence argued that Barton's actions were provoked by the deceased's continuous blackmail and threats, which created a state of mind that significantly impaired his self-control. The prosecution contended that the offence was of the highest degree of moral blameworthiness, warranting the maximum penalty. The court needed to determine whether the provocation Barton experienced was sufficient to reduce his culpability and whether the manslaughter conviction should stand. The court also had to consider the proportionality of the sentence in light of the tragic consequences of Barton's actions.

In its decision, the court found that although Barton's actions were undeniably heinous, the provocation he endured over many years did play a significant role in impairing his self-control. However, the court held that the offence fell within the worst category of murder due to its extreme nature and the tragic consequences. The court determined that imposing the maximum penalty was necessary to reflect the gravity of the crime and to serve as a deterrent. The court also upheld the manslaughter conviction by way of provocation, noting that while Barton's actions were unlawful, they were significantly influenced by the circumstances of the case. The final orders included a life sentence with a non-parole period, reflecting the court's assessment of the severity of the offences.

Orders