R v Bolt

[2001] NSWSC 747

CITATION:	R v Bolt [2001] NSWSC 747
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Common Law Division
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 70030/01
HEARING DATE(S):	14 & 15/08/01
JUDGMENT DATE:	31 August 2001
PARTIES :	Regina Dallas Clint Bolt
JUDGMENT OF:	Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL :	Dan Howard (Crown) Peter Zahra SC (Bolt)
SOLICITORS:	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service (Bolt)
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - provocation manslaughter
CASES CITED:	R v Alexander (1994) 78 ACrim R 141 R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
DECISION:	See para 17

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

No 70030/01 Regina v Dallas Clint Nhummet Bolt

Remarks on Sentence

1     HIS HONOUR: The offender, Dallas Clint Nhummet Bolt, was tried for the murder of his mother at her home at Cambridge Park on 17 September 2000. The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. He had pleaded guilty to that offence but the Crown prosecutor did not accept that plea in discharge of the indictment. At the trial there was no dispute that he had caused his mother’s death by stabbing her repeatedly, with the requisite intent. The only issue was provocation.

2     The genesis of the crime is to be found in the offender’s sad and disturbed upbringing, particularly his relationship with the deceased. This was fully ventilated in the trial and it is unnecessary now to recount it in any detail. For as long as he can remember his parents were heavy drinkers, their relationship was turbulent and frequently there were abusive arguments between them. It seems that his mother was the stronger personality of the two. From about the age of twelve the offender would leave home for periods because he could not tolerate his parents’ behaviour. On other occasions, when he came into conflict with his mother for one reason or another, she would order him out of the house. For some years, when the family was living near Port Macquarie, there were times when he “lived rough” on a beach or found accommodation in a youth refuge.

3     Not surprisingly, he came to the attention of the Department of Community Services. In a recent report, Mr Nick Hedstrom, an officer of the Department who dealt with him during those years, referred to the deceased’s chronic alcohol abuse and her lack of insight into how her behaviour, and that of her husband, might have been affecting the children. Mr Hedstrom wrote, “This pattern of living at home until things blew up, and then either running away, or being told to get out, appeared to develop and solidify through Dallas’ adolescent years.” He considered that “significant damage” had resulted to the offender’s relationship with the deceased and he concluded, “I do firmly believe that these factors caused him great pain during his formative years”.

4     Also not surprisingly, the offender’s education was disrupted and he left school before completing Year 10. He has had little employment. His mother was given to adverse comments about his lack of education and employment, either directly to him or to others in his presence. She would use expressions such as “useless” and “good for nothing”, often accompanied by expletives. He found her behaviour as inexplicable as it was hurtful. Predictably enough, personality testing by Ms Elizabeth Kusch, psychologist, who provided a report in February 2001, found that “he suffers profound feelings of inadequacy, poor self esteem, an intense fear of rejection and abandonment, social anxiety and mistrust”.

5     The offender was nineteen years old at the time of the offence and is now twenty. He has three older siblings, a sister and two brothers. No doubt, they also were affected by this dysfunctional household but, of course, that was not a matter explored in evidence.

6     It is against this background that the events of the evening of 17 September 2000 must be understood. Members of the family and a family friend had gathered at the home at Cambridge Park for a barbecue. The offender’s sister, Nicole was living at the home. There developed what was described in evidence as “an argument” between the deceased and Nicole about a matter which is not material for present purposes. In truth, it was a one-sided affair in which the deceased abused Nicole, who was reduced to tears.

7     The deceased ordered Nicole out of the home. It seems that Nicole suffers from a mental illness, and she was distressed and fearful at the prospect of having nowhere to stay. The offender was conscious of this and he remonstrated with the deceased, protesting that there was no good reason for his sister to be thrown out of the home and asking that she be allowed to stay. This was to no avail and, indeed, the deceased demanded that he also leave. She threw Nicole’s belongings (and, it would seem, some of the offender’s) out of the house.

8     A relative who had been at the barbecue offered Nicole and the offender accommodation at her house. Everyone except the offender and the deceased set off in search of a taxi. As there were too many people to be accommodated in one vehicle, the offender was prepared to walk to his relative’s home. He went into the house to collect a bag of belongings, where he was confronted by the deceased. She told him to get out and said, “What do you want in here, you fuckin’ good for nothing cunt?” As he put it, she was “just up in my face”, poking him in the chest and repeating her assertion that he was “good for nothing”. It was at this point that he lost his self control, mounting what can only be described as a frenzied attack upon the deceased with a knife or, possibly, two knives. I accept that he now has no adequate recollection of the stabbing, but the post-mortem findings speak for themselves.

9     He called the “000” emergency line to report what he had done, saying, “I killed me mum…”. The tape recording of that call portrays a young man in a state of high emotion, primarily anger, but with some sense of the enormity of his actions. Among other things, he said that he had “had enough”. When asked by the operator what made him do it, he replied, “Life made me do it…”. He remained at the scene and surrendered to police when they arrived.

10     In assessing the gravity of the crime, it is appropriate that I have regard to the three matters relating to provocation manslaughter set out by Hunt CJ at CL in R v Alexander (1994) 78 ACrim R 141 at 144. In all the circumstances, I consider that the degree of provocation was high. As the Chief Judge pointed out in Alexander (also at 144), “The courts must of course recognise that a long course of conduct by the deceased may often be far more provocative than an isolated incident….”. The offender’s loss of self control followed immediately upon the deceased’s provocative conduct on the occasion in question. It could fairly be said that the degree of violence he displayed was excessive, although one wonders how much weight can be given to this factor when an offender has necessarily lost self control so far as to form the intent requisite for murder.

11     As one would expect, given his background, the offender has a record of previous offences, almost all of which were dealt with in Children’s Courts. They comprise street offences, a minor drug offence, some offences of dishonesty and some of violence. I have been supplied with the facts of two violent incidents in which he was involved, in both of which he displayed a considerable measure of aggression, both verbal and physical. One incident, when he was sixteen years old, led to his being charged with malicious wounding. The victim was a man who had been involved in an argument with the offender’s father. Among other things, the offender chased that man with a knife and cut his hand. In the other incident, when he was aged seventeen, he was involved with three other young men in a violent confrontation with police, which resulted in his being charged with affray.

12     Disturbing as these incidents are, their circumstances do not lead me to conclude that the offender is a continuing danger to the community. In particular, I see the extreme violence which he visited upon his mother as arising from his family background and his relationship with her, and I think it most unlikely that he would re-offend in that way. I have the benefit of a recent psychiatric report from Dr Olav Nielssen, and I agree with his observation that the offender “is more damaged than dangerous”.

13     This is not to deny that much needs to be done to foster his rehabilitation. He has a history of alcohol and drug abuse, and Dr Nielssen emphasised the importance of addressing that matter to minimise the risk of his re-offending. The doctor saw that end as dependent also upon his response to counselling and his progress in educational and vocational training. Ms Kusch, the psychologist, was of the same view, referring particularly to psychotherapy aimed at anger management.

14     Fortunately, that process has begun since the offender has been in custody. Following a suicide attempt, he was admitted to the Kevin Waller Therapeutic Unit at Long Bay. There he came under the care, among others, of Mr Gavin Wesson, psychologist. Mr Wesson gave evidence in the sentence proceedings, and I have found his frankness and insight of great assistance. Over time, the offender has responded to counselling, avoiding conflict with other inmates and developing trust in the staff of the unit and, selectively, in his fellow prisoners. He has also been furthering his education, albeit at a fairly basic level. I trust that he will continue to have the benefit of these opportunities. I strongly recommend that he continue to be counselled, particularly with an eye to drug and alcohol abuse and anger management.

15     Mr Wesson attested to the offender’s remorse for his crime, which I accept as genuine. He put this beyond doubt in the earlier period of his custody, when he was in a more disturbed frame of mind, by carving on to his chest the words “I’m sorry mum”. This is also demonstrated by his plea of guilty to manslaughter and the fact that the trial was conducted on the basis that provocation was the only issue. I was informed from the Bar table that no oral evidence was required at the committal proceedings and that the defendant’s legal representatives conveyed his preparedness to plead guilty to manslaughter to the Crown before his arraignment in this Court. He is entitled to the benefit of that plea of guilty, both as evidence of his remorse and for its utilitarian value, in accordance with the observations of Grove J (with whom Spigelman CJ and Sully J agreed) in R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310, at paras 11-18.

16     The sentence I impose must reflect the undoubted gravity of the crime, whilst giving appropriate weight to the offender’s youth, his disturbed background and his prospects of rehabilitation. But for his plea of guilty, I would consider the appropriate sentence to be imprisonment for seven years. In the light of the plea, and assisted by the guideline in R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383, I would reduce that sentence to five and a half years: a discount of roughly twenty five per cent. Clearly, there are special circumstances warranting a departure from the usual proportion between sentence and non-parole period. The community and the offender would benefit from his being subject to supervision and the sanction of parole for a lengthy period.

17     Dallas Bolt, you are sentenced to imprisonment for five and a half years, to date from 17 September 2000, with a non-parole period of two and a half years. You will be eligible for release on parole on 17 March 2003.

**********

Last Modified: 09/17/2001