R v Bean - [2022] NSWSC 783

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bean [2022] NSWSC 783
Hearing dates: 14 April 2022
Date of orders: 16 June 2022
Decision date: 16 June 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Cavanagh J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years commencing on 31 October 2018 and ending on 30 October 2024. The non-parole period is a term of 4 years, expiring on 30 October 2022, that being the date upon which the offender will become eligible for parole.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Sentencing — Manslaughter — Self‑defence with excessive force — Early guilty plea to manslaughter — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Black v R [2022] NSWCCA 17
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De la Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Lawson v R [2018] NSWCCA 215; (2018) 86 MVR 107
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Hohepa Paetai Bean (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Watts (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Bannisters Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/334512
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 18 October 2018, Hohepa Paetai Bean (the offender) shot Darren Leonard Boardman whilst Mr Boardman was sitting in the driver’s seat of his car on the offender’s property.
Following Mr Boardman’s death, the offender was charged with his murder.
The offender stood trial before Button J and a jury of 12 commencing 19 April 2021. The jury was not able to reach a decision and was discharged on 17 May 2021.
The offender again stood trial before me and a jury of 12 commencing 8 November 2021. On being arraigned, the offender entered a plea of not guilty to murder but offered a plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of self-defence with excessive force. The jury was again unable to reach a decision and was discharged on 30 November 2021.
On 1 February 2022, the offender again came before me and was rearraigned. He entered a plea of not guilty to murder but offered to plead guilty to manslaughter.
On this occasion, the Crown Prosecutor accepted the plea of guilty to manslaughter in full satisfaction of the indictment.
The offender thus falls to be sentenced for the offence of manslaughter. The parties agree that the basis on which he would be sentenced for manslaughter is self-defence with excessive force (s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years. There is no standard non-parole period.
The Crown material on sentence includes:

A statement of agreed facts; and

The offender’s criminal history.

The offender’s material on sentence includes:

A report of Ann-Marie De Santa Brigida dated 31 March 2022;

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 Bean

Details

AGLC: R v Bean [2022] NSWSC 783
Case: [2022] NSWSC 783
Decision Date: 16 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bean involved the defendant, Bean, who was charged with manslaughter following a fatal altercation. Bean claimed that he acted in self-defence when he used excessive force against the victim, resulting in the victim's death. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issues in the case were whether Bean's use of force was justified as self-defence and whether the force used was excessive in the circumstances.

The court considered the legal principles surrounding self-defence, particularly the requirement that the force used must be reasonable in the circumstances. The court examined the evidence presented, including witness statements and expert testimony, to determine whether Bean's actions were proportionate to the threat he faced. The court also evaluated the special circumstances of the case, such as the early guilty plea to manslaughter, which could potentially mitigate the sentence. The court had to balance these factors to arrive at a just outcome.

After careful consideration of the evidence and the legal principles involved, the court concluded that Bean's use of force was not justified as self-defence because it was excessive. The court found that Bean's actions were disproportionate to the threat he faced, and therefore, the claim of self-defence was not valid. However, due to the special circumstances, including the early guilty plea, the court decided to impose a sentence that took into account these mitigating factors. The final orders reflected the court's decision, providing a balanced outcome that considered both the nature of the offence and the mitigating circumstances.

Orders