R v Bryant - [1999] NSWCCA 181

CITATION: R v Bryant [1999] NSWCCA 181

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60458/98

HEARING DATE(S): 29 June 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 June 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Paul Matthew BRYANT

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Dunford J at 27; Adams J at 28

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70088/95

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Dowd J

COUNSEL: J S Stratton (Appellant)
R D Ellis (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Brenda Duchen (Appellant)
C K Smith (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - manslaughter - sentence inconsistent with jury findings; Criminal law - sentencing - sentence manifestly excessive

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 583
Isaacs (1997) 90 A Crim R 587

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60458/98
SPIGELMAN CJ
DUNFORD J
ADAMS J

Tuesday 29 June 1999

REGINA v Paul Matthew BRYANT
JUDGMENT

1    SPIGELMAN CJ: This is an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed by his Honour Justice Dowd on 10 August 1998. The applicant had been found by a jury to be not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. His Honour sentenced the applicant to a total period of ten years comprising a minimum term of six and a half years and an additional term of three and a half years.
2    During the course of the evening of 5 July 1995 a fight occurred between the applicant and the deceased. His Honour summarised the conclusion of this altercation in the following terms:

"A struggle occurred in the kitchen of the premises between the deceased and the prisoner in which no injury was inflicted on the prisoner but the deceased received a number of wounds, the principal wound being to the chest and the last penetrating his skull near his left eye and the sharp knife remaining embedded deeply in his skull. The deceased shortly thereafter bled to death."

3    His Honour concluded:

"Gary Waller died on 6 July 1995 as a result of a stab wound he received to the left side of his chest just to the side of his nipple. The depth of that wound was about 180 mms or seven inches. The knife passed through his left and right lungs, through his pulmonary artery, one of the main arteries to the lung, through the pericardium terminating at the back of the fourth right rib. The knife missed the heart but slightly bruised the blood vessels that came out of the heart."

4    His Honour also summarised other cuts and stab wounds which the deceased had suffered including cuts and wounds to the hands.
5    Manslaughter was open to the jury on the basis of either provocation or an unlawful and dangerous act. For purposes of the sentencing exercise, his Honour rejected the proposition that the applicant acted under provocation in the relevant sense. His Honour set out his findings as follows:

"I have no difficulty…

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 Bryant

Details

AGLC: R v Bryant [1999] NSWCCA 181
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 181
Decision Date: 29 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the accused, Bryant, who was convicted of manslaughter. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was inconsistent with the jury's findings and whether it was manifestly excessive. The jury had found that Bryant's actions did not amount to murder, but rather manslaughter due to a lack of intent to kill. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence of imprisonment, which was disproportionate to the jury's findings, was appropriate.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to manslaughter and the role of the jury in determining the facts. It highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances of the offence, the nature of the act, and the moral culpability of the accused. The court also noted the principle that a sentence should reflect the jury's findings and should not be manifestly excessive. In assessing whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the court considered the sentence in the context of the overall punishment for manslaughter.

After careful consideration, the court found that the sentence imposed was inconsistent with the jury's findings, as it did not adequately reflect the lesser degree of moral culpability associated with manslaughter. The court determined that the sentence was manifestly excessive and thus ordered a re-sentencing hearing to ensure that the sentence would be appropriate and consistent with the jury's findings.

Orders