(1) The offender, Zachary Fraser, is convicted of the manslaughter of Darcy Schafer-Turner.
(2) For the manslaughter of Darcy Schafer-Turner, I impose a sentence of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years and 2 months, commencing from 15 May 2023, and a head sentence of 6 years and 6 months. The offender will become eligible to be released on parole on 14 July 2027. This term has been reduced by a discount of 25 per cent for the plea of guilty [REDACTED].
(3) Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I advise you of the existence of that Act and the fact that it applies to you and to this offence. I direct your legal advisers to explain the significance of this fact to you.
Catchwords:
SENTENCING — manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act — early guilty plea — objective seriousness of the offence — impact of post-offence conduct on the assessment of objective seriousness — subjective considerations relevant to reducing sentence — remorse and prospects of rehabilitation — impact of the offender’s upbringing, relative youth, addiction and mental health issues on sentence — whether special circumstances warranted a variation in the standard ratio
[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 Fraser
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Fraser [2025] NSWSC 1202
Case
[2025] NSWSC 1202
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Fraser involved a defendant charged with manslaughter following an unlawful and dangerous act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering various factors such as the objective seriousness of the offence, the impact of the defendant's early guilty plea, and the influence of post-offence conduct on the perceived severity of the crime. Additionally, the court had to consider subjective factors such as the defendant's remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, upbringing, relative youth, addiction, and mental health issues. The defendant's legal team argued that special circumstances warranted a variation from the standard sentencing ratio.
The court undertook a comprehensive analysis of the various factors presented. It considered the objective seriousness of the offence, which involved a dangerous act leading to a fatality. The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea as a mitigating factor, which typically reduces the severity of the sentence. The post-offence conduct was also evaluated, and the court determined that it did not significantly impact the objective seriousness of the offence. Subjective considerations such as the defendant's remorse and prospects of rehabilitation were carefully assessed. The court also took into account the defendant's challenging upbringing, relative youth, addiction, and mental health issues, which were presented as mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court concluded that, while these factors were significant, they did not warrant a substantial deviation from the standard sentencing ratio.
In arriving at the sentence, the court balanced the objective and subjective factors. It recognised the defendant's remorse and the potential for rehabilitation, as well as the impact of the defendant's background and personal circumstances. However, it also emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need for appropriate deterrence. The court determined that, despite the mitigating factors, the standard sentencing ratio provided a suitable framework for determining the appropriate sentence. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the crime and the mitigating factors presented.
The final orders included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment, along with conditions regarding parole and rehabilitation programs. The court also directed that the defendant receive appropriate support and treatment for his addiction and mental health issues during and after his incarceration.