R v Coldbeck - [2005] VSC 187

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1499 of 2004

THE QUEEN

SUSAN MARJORIE COLDBECK

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF PLEA:	21 March, 3 June 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 July 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 187

---

Criminal law – sentencing – unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter – offender stabbed partner – offender and victim both alcoholics and under influence of alcohol at time of offence – plea of guilty - sentence of seven years with non-parole period of four years and six months – Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R Carlin	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Hartnett	Patrick Dwyer & Co

HER HONOUR:

Susan Marjorie Coldbeck, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of William John Sheringham. It is now my responsibility to impose sentence upon you for that offence.

The facts

The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offence were helpfully set out in a summary provided by the prosecutor, Ms Carlin. The summary has been accepted by your counsel, Mr Hartnett, as accurately representing the central features of the evidence. It broadly reflects the depositional material with which I have been provided.

There is one contentious factual matter, which I will consider later. That relates to the circumstances in which the ulna bone in your left forearm was fractured.

On Thursday, 30 October 2003, you stabbed and killed your boyfriend, William Sheringham. Mr Sheringham was 50 years old. He was unemployed and living with you in your room at an accommodation facility in Sunshine. Mr Sheringham had never been married and did not have any children.

Mr Sheringham had an alcohol problem which had been ongoing since his early 20s. He had an extensive criminal history which included prior convictions for alcohol and violence-related offences. He had served lengthy periods of time in jail.

You were born in 1956. At the time of your offending, you were also unemployed. You killed Mr Sheringham on your 47^th birthday. The offence occurred in the room you shared with him.

You had moved into the Sunshine accommodation in October 2002. The building is owned by the Department of Human Services and is managed by a government- funded community organisation which provides housing and support to people living on a low income.

After meeting Mr Sheringham in early 2003, you developed a relationship with him. He moved in to live with you in your small, single room in March 2003.

Other residents noted that you both drank alcohol on a daily basis and were regularly heard having verbal arguments in your room. During these arguments, both of you were heard to yell loudly. These arguments sometimes went on for hours.

At various times in the past you had complained to family and friends that when Mr Sheringham was drunk he became abusive, had tried to strangle you, had pushed you and broken your toe. There is no…

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 Coldbeck

Details

AGLC: R v Coldbeck [2005] VSC 187
Case: [2005] VSC 187
Decision Date: 12 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Coldbeck, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. The respondent, Coldbeck, stabbed his partner during a heated argument, resulting in her death. Both parties were heavily intoxicated at the time of the incident. Coldbeck pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a total of seven years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The matter was brought before the court to consider the appropriateness of the sentence imposed under the Sentencing Act 1991.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the court had adequately taken into account all relevant factors, including the influence of alcohol on the offender's actions and the nature of the relationship between the offender and the victim. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence met the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

The court held that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The court found that the sentence took into account the influence of alcohol on the offender's actions, the offender's guilty plea, and the relationship between the parties. The court also considered the objectives of sentencing and found that the sentence met these objectives by providing a measure of punishment, denunciation, and deterrence, while also providing an opportunity for the offender to rehabilitate and ultimately protect the community. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

No orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal against sentence.

Orders