R v Briggs (No 9) - [2014] NSWSC 1805

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Briggs (No 9) [2014] NSWSC 1805
Hearing dates: 17 June 2014, 11 December 2014
Decision date: 17 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years to date from 26 December 2012 and expire 25 December 2030, comprising a non-parole period of 13 years, followed by a balance of the term of sentence of 5 years. The first date upon which the offender will be eligible for release to parole is 25 December 2025.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - remarks on sentence - plea of guilty to murder during trial - offender bashed deceased in his own home - intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, not death - spontaneous offence - some evidence of remorse - offender had serious and longstanding problem with alcohol - offender on conditional liberty at the time of the offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 157
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 28(4)
Cases Cited: R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Cecil Paul Briggs
Representation: Counsel:
Mr J McLennan SC (Crown)
Mr J Stratton SC (Offender)
Mr C Bruce SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)
Matthew Lorkin Solicitor (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/399846

Judgment

On 4 June 2014, Cecil Paul Briggs (the offender) was arraigned on an indictment in the Supreme Court at Armidale before a jury panel and me. The indictment contained a single count alleging that, on 26 December 2012 at Armidale, the offender murdered Douglas James Bindley (the deceased). The offender pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. In fact, he had entered the same plea many months before on arraignment. That plea was not accepted by the Crown, and a trial commenced. It became clear during the trial that the position of the offender was that his guilt was reduced from murder to manslaughter by way of excessive force used in self-defence.

The trial proceeded for just over two weeks. Very close to the end of the Crown case, senior counsel then appearing for the offender requested that he be re-arraigned. On that occasion, the offender changed his plea and pleaded guilty to murder. I accepted the plea, returned a verdict of guilty of murder pursuant to s 157 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and discharged the jury.

Thereafter the offender dispensed with the services of his solicitor and senior counsel. The matter was delayed for many months, chiefly because of the inability of the offender to arrange new legal representation. Whilst that delay is regrettable, in the circumstances that I shall go on to explain I do not take it into account against the offender.

Oral and documentary evidence was received by me on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Briggs (No 9) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] NSWSC 1805
Decision Date: 17 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, Briggs, who was charged with murder. Briggs pleaded guilty during the course of his trial. The deceased was bashed in his own home by Briggs, who admitted to intending to inflict grievous bodily harm, but not intending to kill. The offence was spontaneous and there was some evidence of remorse shown by Briggs. Briggs had a serious and longstanding problem with alcohol and was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence. The court was required to consider these factors when determining the appropriate sentence for Briggs.

The legal issues that the court had to address were the appropriate sentence for Briggs given the circumstances of the offence and his background. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, Briggs' background and the need for deterrence and retribution. The court also had to consider the fact that Briggs had pleaded guilty and shown some remorse.

The court, after considering all the factors, determined that the appropriate sentence for Briggs was imprisonment for a term of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years. The court took into account the fact that Briggs had pleaded guilty, shown some remorse and had a serious problem with alcohol. The court also considered the need for deterrence and retribution. The court emphasised that the sentence was not intended to be an example for others, but was appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The court also noted that the sentence reflected the fact that Briggs did not intend to kill the deceased, but intended to inflict grievous bodily harm.

The court ordered that Briggs be detained in custody pending his transfer to prison to serve his sentence.

Orders