R v Beattie (No 4) - [2015] NSWSC 961

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Beattie (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 961
Hearing dates: 13 June 2015
Decision date: 17 July 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Convicted of the offences of hindering police, recklessly damaging property, and assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty. With regard to each offence, I impose a fixed term of imprisonment for 9 months that commences on 7 July 2013, and that expires on 6 April 2014.
Convicted of the offence of murder. I impose a non-parole period of 15 years, to date from 7 July 2013. That will be followed by a parole period of 5 years, to commence on 6 July 2028 and to expire on 6 July 2033. The first date upon which you will be eligible for parole is 6 July 2028.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – remarks on sentence – offender found guilty of murder by jury – plea of guilty to manslaughter – offender intended to inflict really serious injury to deceased – offender had previous criminal conviction for violence – established problem with prohibited drugs – intoxication – offences dealt with by way of s 166 certificate
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 546C
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 268, Sch 1
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 21(5AA), 22A, 28(4), 45
Cases Cited: R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317; (2000) 50 NSWLR 115
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76.
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Matthew Beattie
Representation:
Counsel:
M Barr (Crown)
J Trevallion (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Robert Kaufmann Criminal Lawyer (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/205981

Judgment

Introduction

On 4 March 2015, Matthew Beattie (the offender) was arraigned on an indictment before a jury panel and me. It contained a single count alleging that on 7 July 2013 at Corlette he murdered Dennis O’Brien (the deceased). In fact, the fatal assault had taken place on 30 June 2013, but the deceased had passed away some days later. The offender pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. That plea was not accepted by the Crown, and a trial proceeded before a jury of 12 and me.
At an early stage of the trial, it became clear that the only real issue was whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offender intended to inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased, in light of his intoxication by way of alcohol, prohibited drugs, and prescribed drugs. On 19 March 2015, the jury determined that issue in favour of the Crown by returning a verdict of guilty of murder.
On 12 June 2015, I received evidence on sentence, including two victim impact statements, and helpful oral and written submissions from each counsel.
On the same day, three offences were placed before me by way of a…

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 Beattie (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Beattie (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 961
Case: [2015] NSWSC 961
Decision Date: 17 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Beattie, was found guilty of murder by a jury, however, he had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The deceased had been fatally stabbed by the appellant and it was established that he had intended to inflict really serious injury to the deceased. The appellant had a previous criminal conviction for violence, had an established problem with prohibited drugs, and was intoxicated at the time of the offence. The sentences for both murder and manslaughter were dealt with by way of a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to the circumstances of the case. It was established that the appellant had a violent history, was intoxicated at the time of the offence, and had a drug problem. The court found that the trial judge had given appropriate consideration to these factors, as well as to the appellant's guilty plea and remorse. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court noted that the appellant had a history of violence and drug abuse, and that these factors were properly taken into account by the trial judge. The court also found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's guilty plea and remorse. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence of manslaughter. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders