R v Franklin

Case [2024] NSWDC 637


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Franklin [2024] NSWDC 637
Hearing dates: 23 August 2024
Date of orders: 19 September 2024
Decision date: 19 September 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: D Barrow SC DCJ
Decision:

See [115]

Catchwords:

CRIME – Sentence – Manslaughter – Dangerous and unlawful act

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:

R v Lavender [2005] 222 CLR 67

Veen v The Queen 164 CLR 465

Wilson v The Queen 174 CLR 313

Muldrock v The Queen 244 CLR 120

Cheung v The Queen 209 CLR

Z v R [2015] NSWCCA 274

R v Colomer [2014] NSWCCA 51

Wallace v R [2014] NSWCCA 54

R v Dennis [2015] NSWCCA 297

R v Kiernan [2016] NSWCCA 12

Blanco 106 A Crim R 303

Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353

Blacklidge (Unreported) (12 December 1995) NSWCCA

R v Wood [2014] NSWCCA 184

R v Kerr [2004] NSWSC 75

R v Patterson; R v O’Brien [2020] NSWSC 221

R v White [2023] NSWSC 611

R v Sutcliffe and Others [2000] NSWSC 825

Young v R [2009] NSWCCA 298

Power v The Queen 131 CLR 623

Bugmy v The Queen 169 CLR 525.

Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
The offender (Mr Franklin)
Representation:

For the Crown:
Mr A O’Connor of Counsel

For the offender:
Mr G Sundstrom of Counsel
File Number(s): 2021/00091356

JUDGMENT

  1. On 30 May 2024, Andrew Franklin (the offender) was convicted after a trial before a jury at the District Court sitting in Gosford of the offence of manslaughter. The victim was a young man named Cade Shiells. The offence occurred on or about 7 July 2018.

  2. Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. Parliament has set no standard non-parole period. The foundation of the offence is the unlawful taking of the life of a fellow human being in circumstances that fall short of murder. The maximum penalty nominated by Parliament for a particular offence is a guide or reference to an appropriate sentence. It is one of many relevant considerations.

  3. There are only two categories of manslaughter at common law: manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, and manslaughter by criminal negligence: The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67 at [38]. They are referred to as forms of “involuntary manslaughter” because the ingredients of each do not include the intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm.

  4. In this case, the prosecution case was that the offender was guilty because his actions and those of his de facto father-in-law the late Mr Kevin Stokes, acting together in a joint criminal enterprise, caused the death of Cade Sheills by reason of a dangerous and unlawful act. I must arrive at conclusions, consistent with the jury verdict, as to the factual basis for the unlawful and dangerous act and the extent to which the offender is responsible for those acts. Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1

  5. Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act does not involve an intention to kill…

Continue reading R v Franklin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Franklin [2024] NSWDC 637
Case
[2024] NSWDC 637
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Franklin, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter through committing a dangerous and unlawful act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent had struck the deceased, causing his death, during a heated argument. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent's actions.

The central legal issue in the case was whether the sentence imposed by the court was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the offence. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the degree of the respondent's culpability, and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter. The court also considered the respondent's personal circumstances, including his age, background, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court found that the offence was of significant gravity, and that the respondent's actions were reckless and showed a disregard for the safety of others. The court also noted that the respondent had shown remorse and had taken steps to address his issues. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was insufficient to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, and ordered that the sentence be reviewed and increased. The court also noted that the respondent had a history of offending, which further supported an increased sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [115]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.