R v Edward David ZAMMIT - [2008] NSWSC 317

CITATION: R v Edward David ZAMMIT [2008] NSWSC 317
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 06/02/2008, 28/03/2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 3 months. There is to be a non-parole period of 4 years to commence on 1 June 2006 and to expire on 31 May 2010 the date upon which the offender is eligible to be released to parole. There is a balance of term of 2 years and 3 months to date from 1 June 2010.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Domestic violence - Manslaughter.

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179

PARTIES: Regina v Edward David Zammit

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/00004593001

COUNSEL: J Kiely SC - Crown
P Winch - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
S O'Connor - Offender

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

HOWIE J

WEDNESDAY 9 APRIL 2008

2007/00004593001 REGINA v Edward David ZAMMIT
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Edward Zammit was charged with the murder of the deceased, Deslie Ward, between 16 and 22 May 2006. During the course of committal proceedings in May 2007 he informed the Crown that he would be prepared to plead guilty to the offence of manslaughter. On 6 September 2007 the Crown indicated it would accept the plea. The offender was thereupon committed to this Court for sentence. The basis of the manslaughter charge was death by an unlawful and dangerous act. The offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. There is no applicable standard non-parole period.

2 There was an agreed statement of facts tendered to the Court. The facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced can be summarised briefly. The offender and the deceased had been living in a de facto relationship since 2002 and resided in a unit in a Sydney suburb. On 15 May the offender invited a former partner, Ms Jennings, to have drinks at the unit. The offender, the deceased and Ms Jennings drank wine and beer that had been purchased by the offender. At about 3.15pm the females went to a nearby hotel where they drank beer together. They were later joined by the offender and a neighbour. The four persons later left the hotel after there was some argument in which Ms Jennings was involved with other patrons and as a result of which staff refused to serve her.

3 The offender, the deceased and Ms Jennings returned to the unit where they continued drinking alcohol. Later that evening the offender began to argue with the deceased and accused her of sleeping with other men and using heroin. The deceased admitted the truth of these accusations. Ms Jennings asked the deceased if the accused hit her on occasions…

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 Edward David ZAMMIT

Details

AGLC: R v Edward David Zammit [2008] NSWSC 317
Case: [2008] NSWSC 317
Decision Date: 9 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Edward David Zammit was heard, where the defendant was charged with the offence of manslaughter. The incident involved the death of the defendant's partner, and the primary issue was the appropriate sentence to be imposed following a guilty plea to the lesser charge. The case centred on the circumstances surrounding the domestic violence incident and the defendant's background, which were critical in determining the appropriate penalty.

The central legal issue was the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, given the context of domestic violence and the defendant's plea to manslaughter rather than the more serious charge of murder. The court had to consider the principles of culpability, proportionality, and deterrence, alongside the mitigating factors presented by the defence, such as the defendant's background and remorse. Additionally, the court examined the statutory guidelines under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) to ensure the sentence was both just and proportionate to the crime.

The court found that the mitigating factors, including the defendant's remorse and the coercive circumstances under which the offence was committed, warranted a reduced sentence. However, the gravity of the crime and the need for general deterrence could not be overlooked. Ultimately, the court balanced these considerations and determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but sought to minimise the impact on the defendant's family. The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need to protect the community while also considering the personal circumstances of the defendant.

Orders