R v Bugmy - [2013] NSWSC 1885

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bugmy [2013] NSWSC 1885
Hearing dates: 11 December 2013, 12 December 2013, 13 December 2013
Decision date: 16 December 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Barr AJ
Decision:
Offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 7 years taken to have commenced on 25 February 2012 and to expire on 24 February 2019. Non-parole period of 3 years 6 months taken to have commenced on 25 February 2012 and to expire on 24 August 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - manslaughter - excessive self-defence - deprived childhood - exposure to domestic violence - history of petrol sniffing - alcohol - marijuana - history of violent offending - self defence - victim unreasonably refused medical treatment - plea of guilty - remorse - poor prospects of rehabilitation - need for assistance and supervision warrants longer parole period - custodial sentence imposed
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Randall Scott Bugmy (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr B Hughes SC (Crown)
Mr E Wilson SC (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutors (Crown)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2012/62816
Publication restriction: None

Remarks on sentence

BARR AJ The offender, Randall Scott Bugmy, was charged with the murder of Roy Johnson at Broken Hill on 25 February 2012. On 9 December 2013, the day fixed for the commencement of his trial, he offered a plea of guilty of the manslaughter of Mr. Johnson and the Crown accepted the offer in discharge of the indictment.

The Facts

At about 10:00am on Saturday 25 February 2012 the offender, then aged 25 years, and his mother, Patsy Ann Bugmy, attended premises at 115 Creedon Street, Broken Hill, not far from where they lived. They were members of a group of people who appeared to the occupant, Ms Tina Crowe, to have been drinking. With them were the deceased, aged 24 years, and Marie Johnson, his mother. The group remained at Ms Crowe's house and continued to drink beer and wine throughout the day.

At about 7:30pm an altercation took place between Ms Anevea Dutton and Ms Johnson. The deceased took Ms Dutton into the house so that she could calm down. A little later a fight took place between Ms Bugmy and Ms Johnson. The deceased left the house, entered the yard and began assaulting the offender. They exchanged punches. The deceased gained the upper hand and forced the offender back against the front fence. The offender went down on the grass and the deceased stood over him, punching him. The offender punched back.

Ms Dutton left the house and tried to break up the fight between the two women. The deceased left off his attack on the offender and punched Ms Dutton in the eye, causing a laceration. She was treated later that evening at hospital.

The deceased resumed his attack on the offender, who was still on the ground. He managed to get to his feet and seized a pair of scissors…

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 Bugmy

Details

AGLC: R v Bugmy [2013] NSWSC 1885
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1885
Decision Date: 16 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bugmy involved an individual who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The defendant, Bugmy, had a history of a deprived childhood, exposure to domestic violence, and a history of petrol sniffing, alcohol, and marijuana use. The victim had unreasonably refused medical treatment, which led to their death. The defendant had also pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence that considered the defendant's background and circumstances, as well as the need for rehabilitation and public protection.

The legal issues before the court were to determine an appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the excessive self-defence, the defendant's background, history of violent offending, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation. The court also needed to decide on the appropriate length of parole supervision and the need for assistance and supervision. The court needed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

The court found that the defendant's background and circumstances were significant mitigating factors. The court acknowledged the impact of the defendant's deprived childhood and exposure to domestic violence on his offending behaviour. The court also found that the defendant's history of violent offending and lack of remorse were aggravating factors. However, the court found that the defendant had shown remorse and had poor prospects of rehabilitation without assistance and supervision. The court decided that a custodial sentence was appropriate, followed by a longer parole period with assistance and supervision. The court imposed a custodial sentence of six years and nine months, with a non-parole period of four years and three months. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to a supervision order for a period of five years following his release from prison.

Orders