R v Edwards-Norris - [2011] VSC 122

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0083 of 2011

THE QUEEN

NAKKARA EDWARDS-NORRIS

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	28 January, 2 February, 9 March 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Edwards-Norris
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 122

---

Plea to manslaughter – Aboriginality – disadvantage – youthful offender.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr C Thomson	Galbally and O’Bryan

HER HONOUR:

You Nakkara Edwards-Norris have pleaded guilty to one count of the manslaughter of Kevin Dow who died on Tuesday 27 October 2009. Kevin Dow was 47 years of age at the time of his death. You were 20 years of age at the time of the commission of this offence, having been born on 18 March 1989. Both you and Kevin Dow have the commonality of both an Aboriginal and a deprived background. The deceased was your mother’s partner and had been for some 19 years. Both the deceased and your mother had a long involvement with drugs.

As indicated both you and the deceased man are said to have an extremely deprived background. Kevin Dow being one of 18 children and significantly under-educated. He was made a ward of the State at 13 and spent the rest of his youth in and out of various boys homes. He became a father to twin daughters at about the age of 18 and he had little contact with that family over a lengthy period of time.

He had a lengthy history relating to dishonesty and violence which appears to relate to his very long-term and deep-seated addiction to drugs. Your mother was a heroin addict and the partner of Kevin Dow. As indicated she had been his partner for some 19 years off and on. You have what can only be described as a complicated family history.

You are the second child of the relationship between your mother, Cheryl Norris, and a man by the name of David Edwards – also an Aboriginal man. You have an elder sister and two half-siblings. You had lived in various places during your developing years, including with your uncle, Eric Edwards (known as Mick), your father and your mother as well as sisters and departmental care. You were at the time of this killing present in your mother’s home but you were not in fact living there on a full-time basis but had returned to the house against your mother’s wishes.

At the time that Kevin Dow died you had been in a relationship with Rhiannon Apkarian for some months and she was approximately eight weeks pregnant at the time. There appeared to be ongoing conflict between yourself, your mother and Ms Apkarian about the pregnancy and matters relating to the pregnancy in the period leading up to this offending. At the time of those arguments, you had been…

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 Edwards-Norris

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards-Norris [2011] VSC 122
Case: [2011] VSC 122
Decision Date: 5 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Edwards-Norris, the accused, Edwards-Norris, faced a criminal trial before the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case involved a serious charge of manslaughter arising from an incident where Edwards-Norris had taken a life. A plea of manslaughter was entered by the defence, with considerations given to the accused's Aboriginal background and the socio-economic disadvantages he faced, as well as his age at the time of the offence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plea to manslaughter should be accepted, considering the mitigating circumstances presented. These included the accused's Aboriginality, which the defence argued had played a role in the socio-economic disadvantages he faced, and his age, which was a significant factor at the time of the offence. The legal issues revolved around whether these factors warranted a reduction in culpability and a plea to manslaughter rather than the more serious charge of murder.

The court meticulously examined the mitigating circumstances, acknowledging the systemic disadvantages faced by Aboriginal individuals and the impact of these on the accused's background and circumstances. The court also considered the age of the accused and the nature of the offence. After a thorough evaluation, the court accepted the plea to manslaughter, recognising the mitigating factors presented. The court determined that while the offence was grave, the mitigating circumstances warranted a reduced charge.

The final orders of the court acknowledged the plea to manslaughter and set the matter for sentencing, taking into account the detailed considerations of the accused's background and the circumstances of the offence.

Orders