R v Bryce (No 5) - [2014] NSWSC 1184

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bryce (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1184
Hearing dates: 8 August 2014
Decision date: 29 August 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
For the offence of manslaughter, the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of six years and an additional term of two years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - offender acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - no direct evidence as to precisely how injury causing death was occasioned - resolution of uncertainty as to the basis upon which offender is to be sentenced - offence aggravated by not seeking medical attention for victim - moderate to high risk of reoffending.
Legislation Cited: - Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24, s 558
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 5A, s 25C
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 9, s 21A, s 44, s 54A
Cases Cited: - Berrier v R [2009] NSWCCA 40
- Dulihanty v R [2013] NSWCCA 275
- MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
- R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 2 December 1995, unrep.)
- R v Bryce (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 498
- R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
- R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
- R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256; 199 A Crim R 199
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown (Prosecutor)
John Keith Bryce (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
E. Balodis (Crown)
P.S. Williams (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Andrew Scali (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/156908

Judgment

On 28 April 2014 the offender, John Keith Bryce, was arraigned on an indictment that charged him with the murder of Katryn Barton, also known as Catherine Jane Barton, at Waterloo on or about 15 May 2012.

Mr Bryce pleaded not guilty to murder. On 19 May 2014 the jury returned a verdict of not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter. On the return of their verdict, I convicted Mr Bryce. The proceedings were adjourned to 8 August 2014 for submissions on sentence.

The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24). There is no standard non-parole period for the purposes of s 54A(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (the "Sentencing Act") for manslaughter.

Discovery of Ms Barton

At around 9:15pm on 15 May 2012 two police officers attended a Department of Housing apartment complex in Waterloo. They went to a unit occupied by Mr Bryce and knocked on the door (the "unit"). They were seeking to interview Mr Bryce in relation to a complaint that he had assaulted Ms Barton earlier that morning. After they entered the unit they noticed Ms Barton was lying on top of a mattress in the middle of the lounge room floor. She appeared to be sleeping very heavily.

The officers went with Mr Bryce…

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 Bryce (No 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Bryce (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1184
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1184
Decision Date: 29 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bryce (No 5) arose from the death of a victim caused by an unlawful and dangerous act committed by the defendant. The defendant was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue before the court was determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, given the complexities surrounding the precise nature of the injury that led to the victim's death and the lack of direct evidence regarding the exact circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider the aggravating factor of the defendant's failure to seek medical assistance for the victim, along with the risk of reoffending.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions to ascertain the correct sentencing framework. It examined whether the sentencing should be based on the principles applicable to murder or manslaughter, considering the uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the unlawful act. The court also evaluated the defendant's culpability and the aggravating circumstances, particularly the failure to seek medical help, which contributed to the victim's death. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the risk of reoffending, taking into account both the legal principles and the specific facts of the case.

The court determined that the defendant should be sentenced as if for murder, due to the moderate to high risk of reoffending and the aggravating factor of not seeking medical attention. The judge imposed a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and retribution with the defendant's culpability and the circumstances of the offence. The court's reasoning was grounded in the legal principles applicable to sentencing in cases of manslaughter, with particular emphasis on the aggravating factors and the defendant's likelihood to reoffend.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community. The sentence was designed to provide both punishment and deterrence, considering the defendant's actions and the risk of future offending.

Orders