R v Fraser and Spencer - [2007] NSWSC 1449

CITATION: R v Owen Henry FRAZER, R v William Wayne SPENCER [2007] NSWSC 1449

HEARING DATE(S): 22/11/2007, 05/12/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender Frazer is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years made up of a non-parole period of 7 1/2 years with a balance of term of 3 1/2 years. The sentence is to date from 19 May 2006 and the non-parole period expires on 18 November 2013 the date upon which the offender will be eligible for release to parole. The offender Spencer is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 13 years made up of a non-parole period of 9 1/2 years with a balance of term of 3 1/2 years. The sentence is to date drom 19 May 2006 and the non-parole period expires on 18 November 2015 the date upon which the offender will be eligible for release to parole.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence for manslaughter after trial - SENTENCE - killing in the course of armed robbery.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 112(3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 21A(2)(k)

CASES CITED: R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Charman [2007] NSWSC 1177
R v Dang [2001] NSWCCA 321
R v Denton [2001] NSWSC 850

PARTIES: Regina v Owen Henry Frazer
Regina v William Wayne Spencer

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/0000213101, 2007/0000213001

COUNSEL: H Wilson - Crown
J O'Sullivan - Offender Frazer
S Austin - Offender Spencer

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor - Crown
Nicholas Moir & Associates - Offender Frazer
Delosaburke & Elphick - Offender Spencer

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HOWIE J

TUESDAY 11 DECEMBER 2007

2007/0000213001 R v William Wayne SPENCER
2007/0000213101 R v Owen Henry FRAZER
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: At about 4am on 11 January 2005 the deceased Ric Anson was shot to death in the bedroom of his home. The offenders Owen Frazer, William Spencer and a third man, Kirrlie Wilson, were charged with his murder. On 22 November a jury convicted Wilson of murder and the offenders Frazer and Spencer of manslaughter.

2 The Crown case was that the deceased was intentionally shot during the course of an armed robbery committed by Frazer and Wilson at the instigation of Spencer. The defence case was that the deceased was accidentally shot during a drug supply transaction between Wilson and the deceased organised by Spencer. Each of the offenders gave evidence in support of that defence. It is obvious from the jury’s verdicts that they rejected those accounts. On the issues raised during the trial and in light of the verdicts, there is in my mind no doubt as to the factual basis upon which the offenders are to be sentenced. It is as follows.

3 At the time of the killing, the offender Spencer and his girlfriend Hazel Seery had been living with the…

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 and Spencer

Details

AGLC: R v Fraser and Spencer [2007] NSWSC 1449
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1449
Decision Date: 11 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Fraser and Spencer, the defendants were convicted of manslaughter following a trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the severity of their sentence was under consideration. The pair had been found guilty of killing a victim during an armed robbery, a crime that had resulted in significant loss of life.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendants, considering the gravity of the crime and the circumstances under which it was committed. Key issues included the nature of the crime, the defendants' roles in the incident, and the principles of sentencing relevant to manslaughter cases, particularly those involving aggravating factors such as the use of a weapon during a robbery.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, emphasised the heinous nature of the crime, the use of a firearm, and the lack of remorse shown by the defendants. The court held that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence and act as a deterrent to others. After careful consideration of the circumstances, the court sentenced the defendants to a lengthy period of imprisonment, with non-parole periods that reflected the gravity of their actions and the loss of life caused by their conduct.

The final orders of the court mandated that the defendants be remanded into custody and that their sentences be served in accordance with the terms set out in the judgment. The court's decision underscored the importance of upholding the law and ensuring that justice is served in cases of serious violent crime.

Orders