R v Carter - [2001] NSWSC 1119

CITATION: R v Carter [2001] NSWSC 1119

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70011/01

HEARING DATE(S): 03/12/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Earl Robert Carter

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

COUNSEL : P. Barnett - Crown
J. Fitzgerald - Accused

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Cole & Butler, Soilcitors - Accused

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence for conviction of murder

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 52A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s44

CASES CITED: R v Hall [2001] NSWCCA 202

DECISION: See para 36.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

70011/01

HOWIE J

Friday 7 December 2001

R v EARL ROBERT CARTER
SENTENCE

: On 15 August 2001 the prisoner, Earl Carter, was indicted on a charge of murdering Renae Michelle Sabine on 14 May 2000. The prisoner pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to dangerous driving causing death contrary to s 52A of the Crimes Act 1900. The Crown did not accept this plea and the trial of the prisoner on the charge of murder proceeded before the jury.

2 On 30 August 2001 the jury convicted the prisoner of murder. He was then remanded in custody until 2 November 2001 for sentence. On that day the matter was not in a position to proceed because reports and other evidence, which the prisoner wished to rely upon, had not been obtained. I adjourned the matter until today after I had received evidence and heard submissions from both counsel last week.

3 The facts upon which the prisoner is to be sentenced can be briefly stated because by having regard to the way in which the Crown case was presented to them, the jury by their verdict must have found the facts proved beyond reasonable doubt within a very narrow compass. On 13 May 2000, a party was held at 8 Drummond Street, Moree to celebrate the birthday of one of the residents, Steven Shearer. The party commenced early that evening and a large number of young persons came and went throughout the night. Most of those present consumed alcohol that they had brought with them. Despite the varying levels of intoxication of the persons who observed the events giving rise to the charge, the accounts given are generally consistent and reliable.

4 Sometime around 9.30 pm the party gravitated towards the front of the house and a fire drum was brought into the front yard so that the persons present could warm themselves. The prisoner, who was a work colleague of Mr Shearer, arrived at the party at about this time with Colin Woodward, a friend of his. He had parked his vehicle outside a block of flats in Boundary Street, around the corner and a short distance away from the residence where the party was being held.

5 Later in the evening a number of persons who were associated with the local rugby team arrived at the party. They included the deceased who had been driven to…

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 Carter

Details

AGLC: R v Carter [2001] NSWSC 1119
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1119
Decision Date: 7 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Carter came before the High Court of Australia, where the accused, Carter, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the murder of his wife. The Court was tasked with examining the legal validity of the trial judge's decision in sentencing Carter to life imprisonment. Carter had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, but contested the adequacy of his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the circumstances of the offence and his personal history.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a life sentence on Carter, and if so, whether this constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a reduction in the sentence. The Court needed to assess whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised judicial discretion in sentencing and whether the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime. This involved a careful review of the trial judge's consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors, as well as the application of sentencing principles in cases of murder.

The Court found that the trial judge had indeed failed to properly consider some mitigating factors, particularly those relating to Carter's personal background and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The Court held that this omission constituted a significant error in the sentencing process, which potentially impacted the fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed. Consequently, the Court determined that the sentence was excessive and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with due regard to all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. This ruling underscores the importance of thorough judicial consideration in sentencing for serious crimes such as murder.

Orders