R v Charters - [2020] NSWSC 842

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Charters [2020] NSWSC 842
Hearing dates: 9 April; 26 June 2020
Decision date: 03 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months, and a balance of term of 2 years. The total sentence is 4 years 9 months, commencing from 19 January 2018 and expiring on 18 October 2022. The offender will become eligible for possible release on parole when the non-parole period expires on 18 October 2020.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – offender originally charged with murder – jury found offender guilty of manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence – where offender has possible traumatic brain injury, mental illness and intellectual disability that has not been officially diagnosed – where offence below mid-range of objective seriousness – where offender had a troubled upbringing – where offender remorseful and reasonable prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Garry Brent Charters (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Shaw (Crown)
L Rowan (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
George Sten & Co (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/349785

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Garry Charters and William Merritt were charged that on 19 November 2017, at Forbes, they murdered Mathew LeBrocque or, alternatively, that they unlawfully killed Mr LeBrocque (manslaughter). Both of them entered pleas of not guilty to both charges. The joint trial commenced on 25 November 2019 before me and a jury at Bathurst. On 11 December 2019, the jury returned with verdicts, acquitting Mr Merritt of both counts and finding Mr Charters not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Mr Charters, hereinafter referred to as the offender, is now to be sentenced.
At the time of the offence, the deceased was aged 31 and residing in Forbes. He had been in a domestic relationship with Hannah Cumberland for about 12 months, until about a week before the incident in which the deceased was killed. The deceased had assaulted Ms Cumberland, being one of a series of assaults by him against her, prompting her to move into another house at Weelong Place in Forbes where two friends resided (“Weelong Place”). Those friends were Andrew Dick and Shannon Bray.
In the early hours of Sunday 19 November 2017, while under the influence of methamphetamine, alcohol and possibly steroids, the deceased went to Weelong Place wielding a large knife, and tried to force his way inside to gain access to Ms Cumberland. I shall refer to this overall event as “the incident”, during which the…

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 Charters

Details

AGLC: R v Charters [2020] NSWSC 842
Case: [2020] NSWSC 842
Decision Date: 03 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Charters, the defendant, Charters, was initially charged with murder. Following a trial, the jury found Charters guilty of manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Charters, taking into account various mitigating factors. These included the possibility of traumatic brain injury, mental illness, and an intellectual disability that had not been officially diagnosed. Additionally, the court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, which was below the mid-range, Charters' troubled upbringing, his expression of remorse, and his reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, weighing the need for denunciation and deterrence against the mitigating factors present in Charters' case. The court recognised the potential impact of Charters' traumatic brain injury, mental illness, and intellectual disability on his capacity for self-control and understanding of his actions. Furthermore, the court acknowledged Charters' troubled background, which may have contributed to his actions, and his expression of remorse and potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that these mitigating factors warranted a sentence below the mid-range of objective seriousness, but still within the range of sentences typically imposed for manslaughter.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the objective seriousness of the offence while also accounting for the mitigating factors. The court recognised the need to balance the principles of denunciation and deterrence with the circumstances of the offender. By imposing a sentence within the mid-range for manslaughter, the court ensured that the sentence was proportionate to the offence while also considering the mitigating factors present in Charters' case. The court's decision demonstrates the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the nature of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders