R v Bolt - [2013] NSWSC 895

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jermaine BOLT [2013] NSWSC 895
Hearing dates: 07/06/2013
Decision date: 05 July 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 years' imprisonment, commencing 15 October 2011 and concluding 14 October 2023, with a remainder of term of a further 6 years' imprisonment, concluding on 14 October 2029. First eligible for release on 14 October 2023.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - domestic violence - intention to inflict grievous bodily harm - momentary and spontaneous intention - a degree of provocation - principles in Fernando applied - sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94; (2009) 194 A Crim R 439
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Jermaine BOLT (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
J McLennan (Crown)
C Bruce SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/328884
Publication restriction: None

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 15 October 2011, Jermaine Bolt was arrested and charged with murder. He has been in custody since that date. Mr Bolt was charged that, on the day of his arrest, namely, 15 October 2011, at Ballina in the State of New South Wales, he murdered Tanya Murray. The offence arose out of an incident of domestic violence. The deceased, Tanya Murray, was Mr Bolt's partner.

Circumstances of the Offence

Jermaine Bolt was born on 25 November 1984 and was 26 at the time of the offence. The deceased, Tanya Murray, was born on 14 October 1982 and was 29 at the time of her death.

The offender and the deceased had been in a de facto relationship and lived in the Armidale area until they moved, approximately 12 months before the incident, to Ballina. During the course of their relationship, the deceased had complained to members of her family, on more than one occasion, that she had been assaulted by Mr Bolt. The deceased had been observed with injuries consistent with her complaints. On the other hand, on a number of occasions, Mr Bolt had called the police to the Ballina address to remove the deceased, who was intoxicated and abusive towards Mr Bolt.

On 14 October 2011, Mr Bolt and Ms Murray were celebrating Ms Murray's birthday at home. They both drank large quantities of alcohol and smoked cannabis. At the time that Ms Murray died, each of them were intoxicated. The deceased's blood alcohol reading at post-mortem was 0.148g/100ml and the vitreous humor alcohol reading was 0.182g/100ml. The anti-psychotic drug, quetiapine was also present within the therapeutic range. A number of people attended during the afternoon each of whom has provided a witness statement that is in evidence before the Court. The summary of facts for sentence is agreed between the parties and reflects those statements.

The deceased was upset and jealous.…

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 Bolt

Details

AGLC: R v Bolt [2013] NSWSC 895
Case: [2013] NSWSC 895
Decision Date: 05 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bolt involved the defendant, Bolt, who was charged with the murder of his partner. The nature of the dispute centred on the level of intent and the degree of provocation involved in the incident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which is the highest court in the state of Victoria, Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the degree of intent behind the killing and whether it could be characterised as murder. Specifically, the court had to determine whether Bolt's actions were a result of a momentary and spontaneous intention, influenced by a degree of provocation, and whether these factors warranted a sentence other than that of murder. The court also considered whether the principles set out in the case of Fernando could be applied to this matter.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the incident. It found that Bolt's actions were indeed influenced by a momentary and spontaneous intention and that there was a degree of provocation. The court held that these factors should be taken into account when considering the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court decided that the principles in Fernando were applicable, and it imposed a sentence that reflected the mitigating factors present in the case. The court found that the circumstances did not warrant a sentence of murder, and Bolt was sentenced accordingly.

The final orders of the court were that Bolt was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the mitigating factors identified during the proceedings. The sentence recognised the degree of provocation and the momentary and spontaneous nature of the defendant's actions.

Orders