Legal Research
Cases
R v Compton

R v Compton

Case [2008] NSWSC 204 7 March 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Compton [2008] NSWSC 204

HEARING DATE(S): 1 February 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert AJ

DECISION: For the manslaughter of the deceased sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years nine months commencing on 20 June 2006 and expiring on 19 March 2013 and a balance of term of two years three months expiring on 19 June 2015. The first date eligible for release to parole will be 19 March 2013.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Manslaughter — victim a young child — offender responsible for her care — element of deterrence

LEGISLATION CITED: Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: Bollen (1998) 99 ACR 510
Hoerler 147 ACR 520
Howard [2000] NSWSC 876
Previtera (1997) 94 ACR 76
R v Bilton [2000] NSWSC 1113
R v Blacklidge NSWCCA unreported 12th December 1995
R v Dalton [2005] NSWCCA 156
R v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309
R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76
R v Leach [2007] NSWSC 355
R v Marshall [2003] NSWSC 448
R v Mundene [2007] NSWSC 355
R v Recalde [2000] NSWSC 1247
R v Webb [2002] NSWSC 618
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
R v Wilson (2005) 62 NSWLR 346
R v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416
Vaughan 1991 56ACR 355; Ditfort NSWCCA 17 March 1992
Veen v The Queen No 2 (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: R v Christopher Leigh COMPTON

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/780

COUNSEL: P Winch (Accused)
W Creasey (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor - Legal Aid Commission
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

STUDDERT AJ

FRIDAY 7 MARCH 2007

2007/780 R v Christopher Leigh COMPTON
SENTENCE

1 STUDDERT J: The offender, Christopher Lee Compton, is before the Court to be sentenced for the crime of Manslaughter. The victim of the crime was an infant person and s 11 of the Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 applies: see s 11(1) and s 11(1A)(b). Neither the mother of the victim, nor the grandfather of the victim consents to the publication of the name of the victim and when I heard evidence on sentence on 1st February last, I made an order until further order that there be no publication of the victim’s name connecting her with the proceedings. I now continue that order and hence I shall refer to the victim in these remarks on sentence only as “the deceased”.

2 The offender above named was charged with the murder of the deceased at Mount Hutton on 13th January 2005. When arraigned before me on 29th January 2008, he pleaded not guilty of murder, but guilty to manslaughter and the Crown accepted that plea in satisfaction of the indictment. Hence the offender is before me today to be sentenced for the crime of Manslaughter, by reason of the commission of unlawful and dangerous conduct causing death.

3 Following post-mortem examination on 13th and 14th January 2005, conducted…

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 Compton

Details

AGLC: R v Compton [2008] NSWSC 204
Case: [2008] NSWSC 204
Decision Date: 7 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Compton arose from the death of a young child who was under the care of the defendant, her father. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The child's death was attributed to neglect and inadequate care, and the court was required to determine a sentence that balanced punishment and deterrence, particularly given the defendant's role as the child's primary caregiver.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's responsibility for the child's care, the need for general deterrence in cases involving child neglect, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. The court was also required to consider the mitigating factors presented, such as the defendant's otherwise good character and his genuine remorse.

The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, emphasising the importance of ensuring that those responsible for the care of vulnerable children are held to account. The judge highlighted the need for a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to others in similar positions of responsibility. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary, reflecting both the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific consideration given to the impact on the defendant's role as a caregiver and the broader community's interest in protecting children.

Orders