R v Field - [2014] NSWSC 1797

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Field [2014] NSWSC 1797
Hearing dates: 16/12/2014
Decision date: 17 December 2014
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 10 years comprising a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 4 July 2014 and expiring on 3 January 2022, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months expiring on 3 July 2024.

Catchwords: SENTENCE - manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - one punch - unprovoked assault - no remorse - no evidence of intoxication - mid range objective seriousness - general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Carroll [2010] NSWCCA 55; 200 A Crim R 284
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v MD [2005] NSWCCA 342; 156 A Crim R 372
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Craig Steven Field (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
L Carr (Crown)
A Bellanto QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/219879

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: On 9 December 2014 the offender was convicted after trial of the manslaughter of Kelvin Kane on 16 July 2012. He was acquitted by the jury of Mr Kane's murder.

Mr Kane died as a result of being punched to the jaw in the carpark of the Kingscliff Beach Hotel at Kingscliff at about 9pm on 15 July 2012.

I have received in the sentencing hearing a number of statements from members of Mr Kane's family, two of whom chose to read their statements in open Court: his partner, Suellen Harlow, and his daughter, Georgina Kane. Mr Kane's son, Bradley, also provided me with a statement, as did his sister, Wendy Apostoloff, his mother, Alice Smith, and his brother, Jeffrey Kane.

Under the s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) I am entitled to comment upon that material and I take this opportunity to do so lest those who have provided statements were to think, were I to refer to them later in these sentencing reasons, they were not afforded the close consideration they deserve.

Georgina, who spoke, in part, on behalf of her brother, told me of the afternoon the family had spent together on 15 July 2012 before she and her brother left to return to Tamworth, having no reason to think that would be the last time the family would be together with their father at the helm. It was later that evening that she heard the news of what was, at that time, her father's impending death.

In their separate ways, each member of Mr Kane's family describe him as a man of strength, depth and tenderness: a man of personal integrity who worked tirelessly on the land over many years to provide for his family, as I understand he did in a multitude of ways. To lose a father, son, brother and partner in the circumstances in…

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 Field

Details

AGLC: R v Field [2014] NSWSC 1797
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1797
Decision Date: 17 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Field involved the defendant being charged with manslaughter following an incident where the defendant delivered a single punch to an unsuspecting victim, resulting in the victim's death. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the assault was not premeditated, however, the prosecution contended that the act was both unlawful and dangerous, leading to the victim's death. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into consideration the nature of the unlawful act and the objective seriousness of the offence.

The court identified several key legal issues to be addressed. Firstly, it had to determine whether the single punch constituted an unlawful and dangerous act that resulted in the victim's death. Secondly, the court needed to assess the objective seriousness of the offence. In doing so, the court considered factors such as the nature of the assault, the lack of remorse shown by the defendant, and the absence of any evidence suggesting the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the incident. The court also needed to decide on an appropriate sentence that would serve the purposes of punishment, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the defendant's actions were indeed unlawful and dangerous, as the assault was unprovoked and resulted in the victim's death. The court also determined that the objective seriousness of the offence fell within the mid-range category. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in sentencing, stating that a sentence should be imposed that reflects the community's view on the seriousness of such acts and serves to deter others from engaging in similar behaviour. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need for punishment, denunciation, and deterrence.

The court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of the relevant legal principles and the need to uphold the objectives of sentencing in cases involving manslaughter arising from an unlawful and dangerous act.

Orders