Legal Research
Cases
R v Biddle

R v Biddle

Case [2011] NSWSC 1262 28 October 2011

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Biddle [2011] NSWSC 1262
Hearing dates: 12/09/2011 - 15/09/11, 19/09/11 - 23/09/2011, 10/10/11
Decision date: 28 October 2011
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(a) A non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 21 February 2009 and finishing on 20 February 2027.
(b) A balance of term of nine years commencing on 21 February 2027 and finishing on 20 February 2036.
(c) The first day upon which you will be eligible to be released is 20 February 2027

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Murder - Jury rejected partial defences at trial - No provocation - Capacity to control himself substantially impaired by brain damage subsequent to meningoencephalitis and depression - Impairment not sufficient to reduce liability to manslaughter consistent with jury's verdict
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Murder - Aggravating factors - Use of iron bar - Offence committed in victim's home - Mitigating factors - Not part of any planned or organised criminal activity - Little weight given to victim's conduct and associated relationship tension and general enmity - No prior convictions - Good character - Unlikely to reoffend - Good prospects of rehabilitation - No genuine remorse - Objective seriousness above middle of the range - Importance of deterrence - Special circumstances for varying statutory ratio for non-parole period
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Pearce v The Queen (1988) 194 CLR 610
R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v MacDonell (NSWCCA, 8 December 1995, unreported)
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Clenton Ronald Biddle
Representation: W Creasey (Crown)
P Bodor QC (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Gregory J Goold Solicitor (Offender)

File Number(s): SC 2009/137577
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 20 February 2009, Clenton Biddle viciously attacked Christine Biddle, his wife, at their family property near Kempsey in New South Wales.

He did so by taking an iron bar, surreptitiously entering the family home, coming up behind his wife and striking her with a forceful blow on the head. He then continued to strike her on a number of occasions, including whilst she was lying prone on the ground and completely helpless.

The blows caused multiple fractures of Mrs Biddle's skull, multiple lacerations and serious brain injury. She did not recover and on 21 February 2009, she died without regaining consciousness.

Mr Biddle was arrested in the early hours of 21 February 2009 and has been in custody ever since.…

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 Biddle

Details

AGLC: R v Biddle [2011] NSWSC 1262
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1262
Decision Date: 28 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Biddle, the appellant, Biddle, was convicted of murder and appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant attacked the victim, who was his partner's mother, with an iron bar, leading to her death. The trial jury rejected the partial defences of provocation and substantial impairment of capacity to control himself due to brain damage and depression. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, considering the mitigating and aggravating factors presented.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's brain damage and depression, which resulted from meningoencephalitis, were sufficient to reduce his liability to manslaughter. The court found that the appellant's capacity to control himself was not substantially impaired, and thus, the partial defences were not applicable. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors to determine the appropriate sentence, including the non-parole period. The court considered factors such as the use of an iron bar, the offence being committed in the victim's home, and the appellant's lack of prior convictions and good character. The court also took into account the objective seriousness of the offence, the importance of deterrence, and the special circumstances for varying the statutory ratio for the non-parole period.

The court found that the appellant's brain damage and depression did not substantially impair his capacity to control himself, and thus, the partial defences were not applicable. The court acknowledged that the appellant's brain damage and depression were significant factors but did not reduce his liability to manslaughter. The court found that the aggravating factors, such as the use of an iron bar and the offence being committed in the victim's home, outweighed the mitigating factors, such as the appellant not being part of any planned or organised criminal activity, his good character, and his prospects of rehabilitation. The court determined that the objective seriousness of the offence was above the middle of the range, and the importance of deterrence was significant. The court varied the statutory ratio for the non-parole period due to the special circumstances and sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of twenty-five years.

Orders