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…

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 [2001] NSWSC 747
Case: [2001] NSWSC 747
Decision Date: 31 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, R, was convicted of manslaughter by provocation after killing the victim, Bolt, in a domestic dispute. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge should have exercised his discretion to impose a life sentence.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The High Court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, and the circumstances of the victim. The court also considered whether the trial judge had adequately exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the offence and took into account the relevant circumstances. The court found that the trial judge had adequately exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and took into account the relevant circumstances. The court found that the trial judge had adequately exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was affirmed.

Orders