Legal Research
Cases
R v Charman

R v Charman

Case [2007] NSWSC 1177 12 October 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v CHARMAN [2007] NSWSC 1177

HEARING DATE(S): 14 September 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12 October 2007

DECISION: I sentence the Prisoner to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years dating from 17 April 2006, together with a further term of 2 years dating from 17 April 2010.

PARTIES: Regina
Nathanial David Charman

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/1001

COUNSEL: Crown: P Barnett
Prisoner: C Smith

SOLICITORS: Crown: A Halpin (DPP)
Prisoner: E Manea (Legal Aid Commission)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

Hulme J

12 October 2007

2007/1001 REGINA v NATHANIAL DAVID CHARMAN

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Nathanial David Charman, has pleaded guilty to a charge of the manslaughter, on 15 March 2006, of Michael Joseph Healy. The nature of the manslaughter was by an unlawful and dangerous act.

2 The prisoner now falls to be sentenced. I record that I am required to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any matters I use in a manner adverse to the prisoner, while I need only be satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the matters that argue in favour of mitigation – see R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202.

3 The circumstances of the prisoner's offence were as follows. Some weeks prior to Mr Healy's death, the prisoner was approached by a friend to whom I shall refer as “A”, who asked whether the prisoner would commit a break and enter of Mr Healy's residence in order to steal a safe that contained $60,000 and some documents relating to a fraud that Mr Healy was alleging A had committed. The prisoner ran the suggestion past another friend whom I shall refer to as “B”. B expressed interest in participating and recruited a further person whom I shall refer to as "C”. A plan was formulated whereby the prisoner, B and C were to break into Mr Healy's home, ‘knock him out’ and steal the safe. (I have used pseudonyms to refer to the prisoner's co-offenders because they remain to be tried.)

4 At around 10 p.m. on 11 March 2006, the prisoner, B, C and B’s girlfriend “D” met in the driveway of the house with the prisoner was then residing. They then drove in B’s car to the vicinity of Mr Healy's home. There the car was parked. B and C walked off to the deceased's residence and the prisoner and D remained in the vehicle to await the others' return. The prisoner occupied the driver's seat. B and C were dressed in dark clothing and were wearing black beanies, and as the prisoner observed, B was in possession of a black torch approximately 30 centimetres in length.

5 After a not inconsiderable period - possibly as long as an hour-and-a-half - B and C returned to the car, apparently empty-handed except for…

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 Charman

Details

AGLC: R v Charman [2007] NSWSC 1177
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1177
Decision Date: 12 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Charman involved the sentencing of the appellant, Charman, by the High Court of Australia. Charman was convicted of serious criminal offences and faced a lengthy sentence. The appeal focused on the sentencing phase, with Charman arguing that the trial judge had not appropriately considered certain mitigating factors. The primary issue was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately weigh the mitigating factors presented by Charman, which could have influenced the severity of the sentence imposed.

The court examined the trial judge's approach to sentencing, particularly whether there had been a failure to consider all relevant mitigating factors. The High Court assessed whether the trial judge's decision was open to challenge on the grounds that it did not adequately reflect the mitigating circumstances presented. The court considered whether the trial judge's assessment of the mitigating factors was so deficient that it amounted to a significant error in the sentencing process.

In its decision, the court concluded that the trial judge had indeed erred in not giving sufficient weight to the mitigating factors. The High Court found that the trial judge had failed to appropriately consider the full extent of the mitigating circumstances, which included Charman's background, personal circumstances, and other factors that could have justified a lesser sentence. The court held that this failure amounted to a significant error in the sentencing process, leading to an appealable error. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and remitted the matter to the trial court for resentencing with proper consideration of the mitigating factors.

Orders