Legal Research
Cases
R v Chapman

R v Chapman

Case [2018] NSWSC 1741 16 November 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chapman [2018] NSWSC 1741
Hearing dates: 2 November 2018
Date of orders: 16 November 2018
Decision date: 16 November 2018
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 2 October 2016 and expiring on 1 October 2019 with a balance of term of 3 years expiring on 1 October 2022

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – where mental illness – where low end of moral culpability and objective seriousness – where contrition and remorse – where early guilty plea – where special circumstances
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Director of Public Prosecutions v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Van Xuan Nguyen [2005] NSWSC 600
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Daniel Chapman (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Daleo (Crown)
G Smith SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ly Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/294314
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Daniel Chapman killed his father Stephen Chapman by stabbing him once in the shoulder on 2 October 2016. Mr Chapman was then 20 years of age and suffered from a form of Asperger’s Syndrome. He was originally charged with murder but pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. Mr Chapman now stands to be sentenced for that offence.

Background

Mr Chapman lived with his parents Elaine Bell and Stephen Chapman at their home in Josephine Crescent, Moorebank. His mother had been in a long term relationship with his father since 1992. Mr Chapman was their only child.
Mr Chapman was withdrawn and experienced lifelong difficulties with social interactions. He was often bullied at school and had once threatened self-harm. His teachers had recommended that he be assessed for Asperger’s Syndrome but his mother decided against that course because of the expense.
Mr Chapman had been obsessed with video games from the age of about eight to the effective exclusion of other activities. Over the years Mr Chapman befriended others with similar interests who enjoyed playing online games such as Dungeons and Dragons. He developed an interest in medieval weaponry and collected swords, helmets and spears. Mr Chapman would often place the knives on a bench near his bed at night before retiring.
Mr Chapman had been academically talented until year 11 when his marks declined. He went on to complete some TAFE courses after he left school. Mr Chapman’s mother said he was not interested in working and that it was not unusual for him to spend the whole day in his bedroom playing computer games until the early hours of the morning. Mr Chapman had been undergoing counselling at Headspace prior to the offence after expressing some symptoms of depression and…

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 Chapman

Details

AGLC: R v Chapman [2018] NSWSC 1741
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1741
Decision Date: 16 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chapman involved the defendant, Chapman, and the prosecution. Chapman was charged with manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, a serious criminal offence. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence for Chapman, taking into account his mental illness, his level of moral culpability, the objective seriousness of the act, his expression of contrition and remorse, and his early guilty plea. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included the consideration of Chapman's mental illness in determining the appropriate sentence, the assessment of the level of moral culpability and the objective seriousness of the act, and the impact of Chapman's contrition, remorse, and early guilty plea on the sentencing. The court was required to balance these factors against the need for deterrence and the protection of society.

The court found that Chapman's mental illness was a significant mitigating factor, reducing his level of moral culpability. The act was also found to be at the lower end of objective seriousness. Additionally, Chapman's contrition, remorse, and early guilty plea were considered as further mitigating factors. After weighing all these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The court considered that this sentence would adequately address the need for punishment, deterrence, and protection of society, while also taking into account the special circumstances of Chapman's case.

The final orders of the court were that Chapman be sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of [insert number of years] years. The exact length of the non-parole period was not specified in the text.

Orders