R v Bolt

Case [2001] NSWCCA 487

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:      R v Bolt [2001]  NSWCCA 487

FILE NUMBER(S):
60643/01

HEARING DATE(S):               27/11/2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 13/12/2001

PARTIES:
Regina
Dallas Clint Nhummet Bolt

JUDGMENT OF:       Sheller JA Dowd J Greg James J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):          70030/01

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:     Hidden J

COUNSEL:
Mr RA Hulme- Crown
Mr AC Haesler- Respondent

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor- Crown
Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service- Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
Crown appeal on inadequacy of sentence
Manslaughter
Provocation
Intention to kill
Re-sentencing

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Sentencing Act 1989

DECISION:
1. By majority, sentence is quashed; 2. Conviction confirmed; 3. Total sentence of six years imprisonment imposed, from 17 September 2000 to expire 16 September 2006. Non-parole period of three years and six months fixed, to expire 16 March 2004; 4. The Court recommended that within the Corrective Services Classification System, the respondent is to retain his current custodial arrangements and classification for such period as may be appropriate, consistent with his progression through the process of rehabilitation within the Corrective Services system.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60643/01

SHELLER JA
DOWD J
GREG JAMES J

13 December 2001

R v Dallas Clint Nhummet BOLT

Judgment

  1. SHELLER JA:   I have had the benefit of reading the judgments in draft prepared by Dowd and Greg James JJ. Like Dowd J I do not think the sentence imposed by Hidden J reflects the objective seriousness of the offence committed. Given the accepted degree of provocation I do not think that violence such as that which caused and accompanied the victim’s death can be treated as other than a factor which increases the objective gravity of the offence. Had the respondent with an intent to kill his mother stabbed her once and killed her the offence would objectively have been less serious. I am satisfied with due respect to the sentencing judge that he failed to give weight or sufficient weight to the excessive violence and aggression displayed by the respondent.

  2. For the reasons Dowd J has given I agree with the orders he proposes. To my mind the sentence proposed is the lowest that the circumstances warrant and thereby takes account of the double jeopardy to the respondent which is the result of this appeal.

  3. DOWD J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against a sentence imposed by Hidden J on 31 August 2001 for manslaughter of five and a half years imprisonment in total, with a non-parole period of two and a half years. The trial jury had found the respondent not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for a charge of manslaughter is twenty five years imprisonment

  4. The respondent had pleaded not guilty to a charge that on 17 September 2000 at Cambridge Park, he did murder his mother. He had pleaded guilty…

Continue reading R v Bolt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Bolt [2001] NSWCCA 487
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 487
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia on the respondent, who had been found guilty of the murder of his mother. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was inadequate and whether the trial judge had erred in law in considering the mitigating circumstances of provocation and the absence of an intention to kill. The respondent had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years, which the Crown argued was too lenient given the circumstances of the killing and the respondent's history of violence towards his mother. The Crown further contended that the trial judge had misapplied the principles relating to provocation and the absence of an intention to kill, resulting in an unduly lenient sentence.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing in cases of murder and the appropriate weight to be given to mitigating factors such as provocation and the absence of an intention to kill. It was held that while provocation could be a mitigating factor, it did not absolve the offender of responsibility for their actions. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in not adequately considering the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The Court noted the severity of the attack, the number of stab wounds inflicted, and the respondent's history of violence towards his mother. The Court also found that the trial judge had incorrectly assessed the absence of an intention to kill, as the evidence demonstrated a clear intention to cause fatal harm. The Court ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with these errors in mind.

The Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence and ordered a re-sentencing hearing. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime, provided adequate deterrence, and was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. The re-sentencing was to take into account the principles of general and specific deterrence, the gravity of the offence, and the respondent's history of violence towards his mother. The Court did not specify the new sentence but directed that it should be reconsidered in light of the errors identified in the original sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The respondent had pleaded not guilty to a charge that on 17 September 2000 at Cambridge Park, he did murder his mother. He had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but that plea was not accepted by the Crown.Facts Prior to the offence, there had been a long and unhappy relationship between the victim and the respondent. The respondent’s parents were heavy drinkers and had had a turbulent relationship, as a result of which the respondent would leave home for periods. On other occasions, he would be ordered from the house, and often lived on the beach or found accommodation in a youth refuge. A report of the Department of Community Services referred to the deceased’s chronic alcohol abuse and her lack of insight into how her and her husband’s behaviour may have been affecting their children. On the night of 17 September 2000, there was a gathering for a barbeque at the family home at Cambridge Park, where the respondent’s sister, Nicole, who suffered from mental illness, lived. An argument ensued between the deceased and Nicole, in which the deceased abused her daughter, reducing her to tears. The deceased ordered her daughter out of the home. The daughter was distressed and fearful at the prospect of having nowhere to stay. The respondent remonstrated with the deceased, protesting that there was no proper reason for Nicole to be thrown out of the home, and that she be allowed to stay. The deceased demanded that the respondent also leave, and she threw Nicole’s belongings and some of the respondent’s belongings out of the house. A relative at the barbeque offered Nicole and the respondent accommodation at her house. Everyone other than the respondent and the deceased set off in search of a taxi. The taxi would not accommodate the respondent, who was prepared to proceed independently to the proposed home. He went to the deceased’s house to collect his belongings, and was confronted by the deceased. The deceased told the respondent to get out and said:“What do you want in here, you fuckin’ good for nothing cunt?” She was at this stage very close to the respondent, poking him in the chest. The respondent lost control, mounted a savage attack, described by Hidden J as “frenzied”, upon the deceased with at least a knife, and possibly two knives. The attack involved the infliction of some twenty five to thirty stab wounds, the deepest of which penetrated from the front to the back of the chest. The learned Sentencing Judge accepted that the respondent had no recollection of the stabbing, but the post-mortem showed a large number of very heavy and violent knife blows on the deceased. The respondent called ‘000’ and told the operator that he had killed his mother. The voice on the ‘000’ recording shows a person in a high state of emotion, displaying anger but with an appreciation of what he had done. He said to the operator that he had had enough, and that“… life made me do it…”The respondent remained at the scene and surrendered to police. He then and since has said that he had no recollection of the events.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.