R v Booth

[2019] ACTSC 345

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Booth

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 345

Hearing Date:

2 and 5 December 2019

DecisionDate:

10 December 2019

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [27]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing –manslaughter – sentencing of three co-offenders – offence by joint commission with varied degrees of culpability – offender identified as the least culpable – offender entered early plea of guilty – significant criminal history

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 15

Cases Cited:

Blundell v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 34

R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36
R v Vickerstaff (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 343

R v Welsh [2019] ACTSC 344

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Colin Booth (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

R Christensen (Crown)

K Archer (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 272 of 2018

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. The offender, Colin Maxwell Booth, pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter by joint commission contrary to s 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years’ imprisonment. He is being sentenced at the same time as his two co-offenders and these reasons must be understood in the context of the reasons given in those matters: R v Vickerstaff (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 343; R v Welsh [2019] ACTSC 344.

Facts and objective seriousness

1. The facts upon which Mr Booth is to be sentenced are recorded in the Agreed Statement of Facts.  I have summarised those facts in my decision in R v Vickerstaff (No 2).  I adopt what I have said there. 

1. In summary, Mr Booth along with Graeme Vickerstaff and Dean Welsh attended Mr Bobby Allan’s house in the early hours of the morning of 17 December 2017.  When the door was opened Mr Vickerstaff had a violent altercation with Mr Allan in which he deployed a baseball bat to strike him on the head two or three times.  Mr Allan escaped from the house and went down the road to find assistance.  He ultimately died from a combination of factors which would not have occurred without the assault. 

1. Mr Booth’s involvement was that he was present at the time of the altercation and accepts that there was a non-verbal understanding that Mr Allan was to be violently attacked.  His culpability is substantially less than that of Mr Vickerstaff and somewhat less than that of Mr Welsh.

1. He opportunistically stole some methamphetamine, Mr Allan’s mobile phone and credit card from the premises after Mr Allan had been assaulted.

1. I have taken into account the victim impact statements which are referred to in my decision in R v Vickerstaff (No 2).

Subjective circumstances

1. Mr Booth’s subjective circumstances are described in the pre-sentence report.

1. Mr Booth was born in Goulburn, New South Wales (NSW) and relocated to Canberra when he was two years old. He advised the author of the pre-sentence report…