R v Bellchambers

Case [2010] NSWDC 306
CITATION: R v BELLCHAMBERS [2010] NSWDC 306
HEARING DATE(S): 12 November 2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
12 November 2010
JURISDICTION: District Court - Crime
JUDGMENT OF: Knox SC DCJ
DECISION: Count 1: a fixed term of twelve months imprisonment commencing on 13 April 2009 and expiring on 12 April 2010.
Count 2: a non-parole period of imprisonment of nine years commencing on 13 April 2009 and expiring on 12 April 2018 with an additional four years and six months to be served on parole.
CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Manslaughter - Victim in a coma for four and a half years - Impact of mental illness on sentence - Absence of manifestations of remorse - Delay - Multiple previous trials
LEGISLATION CITED: 18(1)(b) Crimes Act (NSW) 1900
59(1) Crimes Act (NSW) 1900
33 Crimes Act (NSW) 1900
CASES CITED: R v Bellchambers [2008] NSWCCA 235
R v Hoerler (2004) 146 A Crim R 536
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Engert (1996) A Crim R 67
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
R v Niketic [2002] NSWCCA 425
R v Bolt [2001] NSWCCA 487
R v Kwon [2004] NSWCCA 456
R v Sherry [2000] NSWCCA 35
R v Whiting [2002] NSWSC 827
R v Cavanough [2007] NSWSC 561
R v Zammit [2008] NSWSC 317
R v Stewart [2008] NSWSC 1359
R v Doolan [2010] NSWSC 615
R v Mitchell 47 NSWDC (Sides DCJ) 11 December 1998
PARTIES: Regina
Dennis Arthur BELLCHAMBERS
FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/8890
COUNSEL: Mark Hobart SC
Timothy Watts
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
McCulloch and Buggy Lawyers

JUDGMENT

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

INDICTMENT

1 On 9 September 2010, the offender was found guilty by a jury following a trial on the following count:

On 22 January 2010 at Dunbogan in the State of New South Wales did feloniously slay Julie Ann Barry.

2 That count was brought pursuant to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is one of twenty-five years imprisonment.

PLEA

3 The offender was arraigned on 25 August 2010 and on that date he pleaded guilty to an assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act.

4 That offence was count 1 on the indictment before the jury. That offence is subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. An agreed set of facts was handed up in relation to that matter and that became exhibit 1 on the voir dire.

5 In summary, the assault occasioning actual bodily count relates to an assault earlier on the same day as the assault forming the basis of the act constituting the manslaughter count in relation to which the offender was convicted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

6 In November 2006 the offender was indicted on a count of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes Act. The jury on that occasion were unable to agree on…

Continue reading R v Bellchambers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bellchambers [2010] NSWDC 306
Case
[2010] NSWDC 306
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bellchambers, the appellant was convicted of the manslaughter of his partner and the attempted murder of a police officer. The victim was in a coma for four and a half years before passing away. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the impact of the appellant's mental illness, the absence of manifestations of remorse, the delay in the proceedings, and the fact that this was the appellant's third trial. The court was required to balance the severity of the offences against the appellant's mental health, his lack of remorse, and the significant delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to give to the appellant's mental health condition, the relevance of the absence of remorse, and the impact of the delay on the sentencing process. The court had to consider whether the appellant's mental illness mitigated the offences and if his lack of remorse should be a factor in determining the severity of the sentence. Additionally, the court needed to address how the significant delay in the proceedings should influence the final sentence.

The court found that while the appellant's mental illness was a mitigating factor, it was not so significant as to excuse his actions. The court also noted the absence of remorse and the considerable delay in the proceedings as aggravating factors. After weighing these considerations, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter charge was a fixed term of twelve months, and for the attempted murder charge, a non-parole period of nine years with an additional four years and six months to be served on parole. The sentences reflect a balanced approach, taking into account both the mitigating and aggravating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant would serve a fixed term of twelve months imprisonment for the manslaughter charge, starting on 13 April 2009 and expiring on 12 April 2010. For the attempted murder charge, the appellant was to serve a non-parole period of nine years, commencing on 13 April 2009 and expiring on 12 April 2018, with an additional four years and six months to be served on parole.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1: a fixed term of twelve months imprisonment commencing on 13 April 2009 and expiring on 12 April 2010.

Count 2: a non-parole period of imprisonment of nine years commencing on 13 April 2009 and expiring on 12 April 2018 with an additional four years and six months to be served on parole.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.