R v Benstead - [1995] QCA 195

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 195

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 9 of 1995

Brisbane

[R. v. Benstead]

THE QUEEN

LINDA CAROL BENSTEAD

(Applicant)
Fitzgerald P
de Jersey J
Byrne J

Judgment delivered : 23/05/1995
Judgment of the Court

Order: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. The appeal is allowed to the extent that, instead of the sentence imposed, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years with a recommendation that she be eligible for parole after serving 2 years and 6 months of that sentence.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter.
Counsel:	Mr G Long for the applicant Mr W Clark for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant

Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date:

5 April 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Judgment delivered: 23/05/1995

The applicant was convicted on her plea of guilty of the unlawful killing of her friend, Jeffrey McGregor, who died from a single stab to the chest inflicted mid-afternoon on 29 December 1993 in Nambour's main street. The stabbing occurred after a loud and sustained argument between the applicant and McGregor, who were both very drunk. The applicant pulled a knife from her bag, drew it from its sheath with her right hand, and swung her right hand around. The knife became impaled in McGregor's chest, penetrating to the heart. The applicant then let go of the knife, leaving it in McGregor's chest and, while talking to herself, walked across the road to a store. Next she proceeded to an hotel where she was arrested a few minutes later.
The applicant was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment. In recognition of her guilty plea and attempts while awaiting sentence to overcome her dependency on alcohol, the judge recommended that the applicant be eligible for parole after serving four years of the sentence. The applicant contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The applicant was born in 1950. Hers was a troubled childhood. By 1973, when her son was born, she was so addicted to drugs and alcohol that she was unable to care for him. Apart from about six years beginning in 1978, when she temporarily overcame her addictions, the applicant has often been treated for abuse of alcohol and barbiturates. She has been admitted to places providing services to cope with alcohol and drug dependency, including Biala (an alcohol and drug detoxification unit), the Wacol Rehabilitation Service (about a dozen times) and the Alcohol and Drug Service at Royal Brisbane Hospital. She was admitted to Rosemount, a facility within the division of Psychiatry at Royal Brisbane Hospital, for four months in 1985 to be treated for alcohol abuse, a depressive disorder and panic attacks. In 1991 the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from major depression.

The applicant suffered many complications from her alcohol and drug abuse, including mild cerebellar damage and what Dr Reddan, a psychiatrist, calls "alcoholic blackouts". Dr Reddan considers that in late 1993 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 Benstead

Details

AGLC: R v Benstead [1995] QCA 195
Case: [1995] QCA 195
Decision Date: 23/05/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Benstead, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and the matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence. The dispute involved the assessment of the defendant's culpability and the appropriate level of punishment commensurate with the crime committed. The court was tasked with considering the circumstances surrounding the offence and the impact on the victim to determine a just sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was to establish the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and circumstances of the manslaughter offence. This involved an analysis of the relevant sentencing principles and the application of these principles to the facts of the case. The court had to balance the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in arriving at a sentence that was both fair and appropriate.

The court considered the circumstances of the offence, including the defendant's background, the level of premeditation, and the impact on the victim's family. It was noted that the offence involved a degree of recklessness, but there were also mitigating factors such as the defendant's otherwise good character and the absence of any prior criminal history. After careful deliberation, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need to balance the interests of justice with the principles of rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case. The exact length of the sentence was determined based on the court's assessment of the appropriate punishment for the crime committed, ensuring that it served the purposes of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.

Orders