R v BT - [2017] NSWSC 1600

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BT [2017] NSWSC 1600
Hearing dates: 3 November 2017
Date of orders: 24 November 2017
Decision date: 24 November 2017
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to 8 years, NPP 5 years, from 14 November 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – manslaughter – plea of guilty entered after trial for murder in which the jury acquitted of murder but could not agree on manslaughter – killing by father of infant child
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Dalton [2005] NSWCCA 156
R v Marshall [2003] NSWSC 448
R v Monroe [2003] NSWSC 1271
R v Shepherd [2010] NSWSC 154
R v Toohey (No. 2) [2017] NSWSC 1217
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
BT
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Cunneen SC with Mr PJ Strickland (Crown)
Mr H White (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
McWilliams Lawyers

File Number(s): 2015/335406
Publication restriction: No

HIDDEN AJ: On 14 September 2017, this offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his baby daughter, HT, on or about 12 August 2014 at the family home at Regents Park. I shall refer to the deceased child as “the baby”. Between 17 July and 15 August 2017, he stood trial before me for the murder of the baby. The alternative verdict of guilty of manslaughter had been left to the jury. The jury found him not guilty of murder but were unable to agree upon a verdict on manslaughter.

Facts

I received a statement of agreed facts contained in the Crown material, Exhibit A. The parties were agreed that, notwithstanding the evidence adduced in the trial, the offender should be sentenced on the basis of the facts contained in that statement. It is not necessary in these reasons to set out those facts in detail. I shall summarise them relatively briefly.
At the relevant time the offender was in a relationship with a woman, TP, and the baby was the second of their children. They also had a son, JP, who was just under 2 years old at the time. TP also had two other children from a previous relationship, a daughter, TF (aged 6 at the time) and a son, CF (then aged 4). They also lived at the Regents Park home, as did other members of TP’s family.
The baby was born prematurely on 14 June, 2014, and due to respiratory problems remained in hospital until 29 June. She was then well enough to be discharged into the care of her parents at their home. At the time of her death, on 12 August, she was aged 8 weeks and 3 days.
In a recorded interview with police, summarised in the statement of facts, TP gave an account of the course of events on 11 August 2014 and the early hours of 12 August. This discloses that for a period in the afternoon of 11 August, the only people at the home were the offender, JP and the baby.…

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 BT

Details

AGLC: R v BT [2017] NSWSC 1600
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1600
Decision Date: 24 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, BT, was charged with the murder of his infant child. Following a trial in which the jury acquitted BT of murder but could not agree on a verdict for manslaughter, BT entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter. The matter proceeded to the sentencing phase before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for BT's plea of guilty to manslaughter, given the unusual circumstances of the case and the jury's earlier inability to reach a verdict on manslaughter. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the killing, and the appropriate sentence for manslaughter.

The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the profound impact of BT's actions on the victim and the family. Despite the jury's earlier inability to reach a verdict, the court found that BT's actions constituted manslaughter, given the evidence presented. The court noted that the sentence for manslaughter should reflect the seriousness of the offence, taking into account the circumstances of the killing. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for BT was a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered various factors, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances of the killing, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent to others who might commit similar acts. The court also considered the impact of the killing on the victim and the family, as well as the need to provide some measure of justice for the deceased child. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors and the need to balance the interests of justice with the need for general deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that BT be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the profound impact of BT's actions on the victim and the family. The sentence imposed by the court was intended to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to serve as a deterrent to others who might commit similar acts. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors and the need to balance the interests of justice with the need for general deterrence.

Orders