R v Collins - [2004] ACTSC 73

THE QUEEN v THOMAS JAMES COLLINS
[2004] ACTSC 73 (30 August 2004)

SENTENCING – manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act – intoxication – accused inflicted single stab wound upon his mother – absence of motive to kill or injure – need to balance principles of punishment, deterrence and denunciation against subjective and mitigating factors

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 341, 345, 359 and 360(1)

R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 referred to
R v King (NSWCCA, 60240/91, 20 August 1991, unreported) at 8 referred to
R v Nomchong (NSWCCA, 60411/96, 10 April 1997, unreported) at 6 referred to
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402 referred to
R v Troja (NSWCCA, 606394/90, 16 July 1991, unreported) at 4 referred to
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267 at 282-3 referred to

No. SCC 108 of 2003

Judge: Weinberg J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 30 August 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. SCC 108 of 2003
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN
v
AND:THOMAS JAMES COLLINS

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

Judge:  Weinberg J
Date:  30 August 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

On the charge of manslaughter, a conviction be recorded and a sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment be imposed.
A period of 18 months be fixed as the non-parole period.
The sentence and the non-parole period take effect from 17 December 2003.
The non-parole period expire on 16 May 2005.

Thomas James Collins, you were originally charged with the murder of your mother, Julia Margaret Collins. On 18 June 2004, you were acquitted on that count. You were, however, convicted of the alternative crime of manslaughter. It is now my task to impose the sentence of this Court for that crime.
Julia Collins died at about 10.20 pm on 30 January 2003 as a result of a single knife wound to the abdomen. You inflicted that wound, using “severe force”, so much so that the knife penetrated the lumbar vertebra.
I do not propose to set out in detail the events of that evening. They are summarised in the judgment that I delivered when I convicted you of manslaughter. It is sufficient for present purposes simply to note certain salient facts that are not disputed.
You appear to have had a normal, loving relationship with your mother. There was no apparent motive for this crime. You had drunk a significant amount of alcohol throughout the afternoon and evening leading up to the incident, and were obviously intoxicated. You were also probably affected by some cannabis that you had smoked the night before. Your crime was not premeditated. You did not intend to cause your mother’s death, and you did not foresee her death as a probable consequence of your actions. Nonetheless, you brought about that death by a conscious and voluntary act and, consistent with the finding of manslaughter, you must at least have intended to cause some significant injury. That…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 73
Case: [2004] ACTSC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen brought an action against Thomas James Collins, charging him with the murder of his mother, Julia Margaret Collins. Collins was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter, and sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The Court was required to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation against the subjective and mitigating factors present in this case. Collins was intoxicated when he inflicted a fatal stab wound on his mother. He had no motive to kill or injure her, and was not acting with premeditation. He was also affected by drugs. Collins was remorseful, had good prospects for rehabilitation, and was generally of good character. The Crown submitted that a term of imprisonment was necessary, while the Defence submitted that a wholly suspended sentence or a Griffiths Bond was more appropriate. Weinberg J held that the objective seriousness of the crime required a sentence of actual imprisonment. The mitigating factors present in this case, including Collins's remorse, did not reduce the degree of criminality involved. Weinberg J imposed a sentence that was lower than the gravity of the crime would objectively warrant, but still imposed a term of actual imprisonment.

The Court ordered that Collins be imprisoned for a term of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of 18 months. The sentence would take effect from 17 December 2003, the date Collins was first remanded in custody. Collins would be eligible for parole on 16 May 2005.

Orders