R v Flame (No 4) - [2020] NSWSC 1826

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Flame (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1826
Hearing dates: 8 December 2020
Decision date: 16 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Convicted of the offence of manslaughter.
(2) I sentence you to a non-parole period of 5 years 6 months, to date from 4 November 2018, and expire on 3 May 2024.
(3) That will be followed by a parole period of 2 years 6 months, to date from 3 May 2024, and expire on 3 November 2026.
(4) To express my sentence another way, I have imposed a head sentence of imprisonment for 8 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years 6 months, with a full backdate.
(5) If the plea of guilty to manslaughter had not been offered, I would have imposed a head sentence of imprisonment for 11 years.
(6) The first date upon which it appears that the offender may be considered for possible release to parole is 3 May 2024.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – verdict of guilty of manslaughter after trial by jury of count of murder – brutal killing of defenceless victim – defence of mental illness not established – MDMA use triggered psychotic state of offender – offender perceived the deceased to be demonic or a demon – vulnerability to developing schizophrenia – diagnosis of schizophrenia subsequent to the offence – offer to plead guilty to manslaughter – young offender – unblemished character – genuine remorse – special circumstances – sentence imposed

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mathew Flame (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Christofi (Crown)
J Stratton SC and T O’Rourke (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Archbold Gittani Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/339226

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

On 20 October 2020, Matthew Flame (the offender) was arraigned before a jury panel and me. The indictment presented against him contained a single count, alleging that on 4 November 2018, at the beachside suburb of Queenscliff, he murdered Liam Anderson (the deceased). The offender entered a simple plea of not guilty. A jury was immediately empanelled, and the trial proceeded for a number of weeks. It concluded on 12 November 2020 with the return by the jury of a verdict of not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.
Although the plea entered by the offender was a denial of criminal liability, it was made clear from a very early stage that it was based upon the defence of mental illness. The primary submission to the jury by learned defence counsel was that a verdict of not guilty, solely on that basis, should be returned. His alternative position was that a verdict of guilty of manslaughter should be returned, based upon either excessive self-defence, the partial defence of substantial impairment, or an inability on the part of the Crown to prove the necessary mental elements for murder.
Clearly enough, the primary defence was not established on balance to the satisfaction of the jury. It is…

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 Flame (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Flame (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1826
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1826
Decision Date: 16 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Flame, was charged with the murder of a defenceless victim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the jury returned a verdict of guilty for manslaughter. Flame's defence argued that the offender was suffering from a mental illness at the time of the offence, triggered by the use of MDMA, which led him to perceive the deceased as demonic. The defence further contended that the offender was vulnerable to developing schizophrenia and was diagnosed with the condition subsequent to the offence. Despite these arguments, the court found that the defence of mental illness was not established.

The legal issues before the court included whether the offender's mental state at the time of the offence constituted a defence to murder, the impact of the offender's drug use on his mental state, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed in light of the offender's young age, unblemished character, genuine remorse, and the special circumstances of the case. The court considered the mitigating factors and the severity of the crime, ultimately determining the appropriate sentence within the bounds of the law.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the brutality of the killing and the offender's genuine remorse, but found that the defence of mental illness was not established. The court took into account the offender's young age, unblemished character, and the special circumstances of the case, including the offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence, while also considering the mitigating factors presented. The sentence was deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the offender's background.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the mitigating factors and the special circumstances of the case. The court's decision balanced the need for justice and deterrence with the recognition of the offender's genuine remorse and other mitigating factors. The sentence imposed was intended to reflect the seriousness of the crime while also considering the offender's age, character, and remorse.

Orders