Legal Research
Cases
R v Fraser

R v Fraser

Case [2005] NSWCCA 77 3 March 2005

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Fraser [2005] NSWCCA 77

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2660

HEARING DATE(S): 3 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 03/03/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Steven Anthony Fraser

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J James J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70013/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie J

COUNSEL:
L. Lamprati, SC (Crown)
J. Stratton SC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
S. E. O'Connor (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SENTENCE FOLLOWING TRIAL
MURDER OF THREE INFANT CHILDREN BY FATHER
MENTAL STATE FOUND BY JURY NOT TO REDUCE CULPABILITY TO MANSLAUGHTER
POTENTIAL FOR MAXIMUM SENTENCE BUT REDUCED CULPABILITY FOR MURDER BY REASON OF MENTAL STATE
HEAVY SENTENCE NOT EXCESSIVE
NO ERROR OF SENTENCING JUDGE DEMONSTRATED
NOT APPROPRIATE TO INTERVENE WITH DISCRETIONARY ASSESSMENT

LEGISLATION CITED:
s 23A Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/2660
GROVE J
JAMES J
BARR J
3 March 2005

REGINA v STEVEN ANTHONY FRASER

Judgment

GROVE J: Leave is sought to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Howie J. The applicant was convicted of the murder of his three infant children who were, at the time of their deaths, aged seven, five and four years respectively. Upon arraignment the applicant pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. Those pleas were not accepted by the Crown. The issue at the following trial was whether the culpability of the applicant was reduced from murder to manslaughter by reason of substantial mental impairment as provided by s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900. As stated, he was found guilty of murder by the jury. There is no challenge to conviction.
His Honour sentenced the applicant to a fixed term of imprisonment of twenty three years for the murder of Ryan (aged five) commencing on 21 August 2001; to a fixed term of imprisonment of twenty three years for the murder of Jarrod (aged four) commencing on 21 August 2005; and to imprisonment for twenty five years with a non parole period of twenty years for the murder of Ashley (aged seven) commencing on 21 August 2008. The effect of such sentences was a total term of thirty two years with the earliest date of eligibility for parole being 20 August 2028, by which date the applicant will have been in custody for twenty seven years.
Two grounds of appeal were raised:
1. The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive, and
2. His Honour erred in not finding that there were special circumstances producing a variation in the proportion between non parole period and the head sentence.
Neither ground attacked findings made by the judge for the purpose of sentence and his remarks provide a convenient and reliable resource for a sketch of facts sufficient for the purposes of dealing with this application.
The relationship between the applicant and his wife was troubled and they separated several times. In the course of arguments he threatened that she would never…

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 Fraser

Details

AGLC: R v Fraser [2005] NSWCCA 77
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 77
Decision Date: 3 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fraser, the defendant was charged with the murder of three infant children. The case was heard and determined in a court in Australia, where the defendant's mental state was evaluated as part of the sentencing process. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's mental condition, as found by the jury, should reduce his culpability to manslaughter rather than murder. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence imposed was excessive or otherwise inappropriate.

The court meticulously reviewed the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state and its impact on his culpability for the crimes committed. It was determined that while the defendant's mental condition did not absolve him of murder, it did warrant a consideration of reduced culpability. The court balanced this with the gravity of the crimes, ultimately deciding that the potential for the maximum sentence remained valid, but the culpability for murder was reduced due to the mental state. The court held that the sentence imposed, though heavy, was not excessive and did not demonstrate any error on the part of the sentencing judge. The discretionary assessment made by the original sentencing judge was deemed appropriate, and there was no basis for the court to intervene.

The court's decision reaffirmed the sentence handed down by the lower court, underscoring the importance of considering the defendant's mental state in determining culpability while also acknowledging the severity of the crimes. The final orders confirmed that the sentence was appropriate and that there was no need for any alteration or intervention by the higher court.

Orders