R v Boyd

Case [2004] NSWSC 263 5 March 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Stephen John Boyd [2004] NSWSC 263

HEARING DATE(S): 20/06/03, 03/07/03, 09/12/03, 12/02/04, 04/03/04, 05/03/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: For the crime of manslaughter the offender is sentenced to a term of 7½ years imprisonment to commence on 10 January 2002 and to expire on 9 July 2009 with a non-parole period of 4½ years to commence on 10 January 2002. The first date upon which the offender is eligible for release to parole is 9 July 2006.

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter - plea of guilty - excessive self defence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Cameron (2002) 187 ALR 65
R v Cioban [2002] NSWSC 972
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Cioban [2003] NSWCCA 304
R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
R v McDonald (CCA unreported 12 December 1995)
R v Nguyen [2002] NSWSC 536
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Scott [2003] NSWSC 627
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
R v Trevenna [2003] NSWSC 463
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43
R v Troja (CCA unreported 16 July 1991

PARTIES :
Regina
Stephen John Boyd

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70089/2002

COUNSEL: B Newport SC/K McKay (Crown)
C Craigie SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
DJ Humphries (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

FRIDAY 5 MARCH 2004

70089/02 REGINA v STEPHEN JOHN BOYD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 4 April 2003 Stephen John Boyd (the offender) was arraigned before Barr J upon a charge that he murdered Rodney Colin Flesser at Queanbeyan on 10 January 2002. He pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. It did so on the basis that the killing of the deceased was committed in circumstances in which the offender used excessive force in self-defence within the meaning of s 421 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

2 The relevant facts in this matter are set out in the Crown case statement. As it is common ground that it accurately sets out the way in which the Crown put its case against the offender, it is convenient to set it out in full:

Both the accused, Stephen Boyd, born 19.8.64 and the victim, Rodney Flesser, born 8.2.64 resided in adjacent rooms on the second floor of the Hotel Queanbeyan, 59 Crawford Street, Queanbeyan. Mr Flesser had been a resident, on and off, at the hotel for approximately 10 years. Prior to 10 January 2002 Mr Boyd had only resided at the hotel for about 6 weeks.

On the afternoon of Thursday 10 January 2002, Michael Sedgewick and Adam James saw Mr Flesser and Mr Boyd drinking port and listening to music in Mr Boyd's room number 65. Sedgewick and James had a brief conversation…

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 Boyd

Details

AGLC: R v Stephen John Boyd [2004] NSWSC 263
Case: [2004] NSWSC 263
Decision Date: 5 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Boyd, the defendant stood before the court, having pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter. The incident in question arose from an altercation where the defendant claimed he acted in self-defence, albeit with excessive force. The court had to determine the legitimacy of the defendant’s claim of self-defence and whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The primary legal issue the court addressed was whether the defendant's use of force was justified as a reasonable response to an apprehended attack, or if it constituted an excessive reaction amounting to criminal responsibility. The court examined the principles governing self-defence, including the proportionality of the force used relative to the threat perceived by the defendant. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the defendant’s state of mind and perception of the threat was reasonable under the circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the defendant did act out of perceived self-defence, the force used was disproportionate to the threat he faced. The court concluded that the defendant's actions crossed the line from lawful self-defence to an unlawful excessive response. Consequently, the court upheld the plea of guilty to manslaughter. The defendant's mitigating plea of self-defence was accepted to some extent, but the excessive nature of the force led to the conviction.

The court ordered the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while considering the mitigating factor of self-defence. The sentence was tailored to balance the need for deterrence and the recognition of the defendant's genuine fear during the incident.

Orders