R v Frost - [2008] NSWSC 220

CITATION: R v Frost [2008] NSWSC 220

HEARING DATE(S): 13/03/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a non-parole period of three and one half years, which will be taken to have commenced on 18 September 2006 and which will expire on 17 March 2010, and a balance of term of two and one half years which will expire on 17 September 2012. The earliest day eligible for release to parole will be 17 March 2010.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - guilty plea to manslaughter.

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina
Peter Frost

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/5775

COUNSEL: C McPherson (Crown)
C Bruce (Defence)

SOLICITORS: Office of Director of Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Defence)

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

MONDAY 17 MARCH

2007 / 5775 REGINA V PETER FROST

1 HIS HONOUR : The offender, Peter Frost has pleaded guilty of the manslaughter of the deceased, Virginia Abad Frost. The offender and the deceased met in the Philippines, where the deceased was then resident, in 1985. He sponsored her immigration to Australia in 1986 and they married in that year. There were three children of the marriage. The deceased began using crystal methamphetamine, or ice, which she smoked. Early in 2003 the marriage broke down and the deceased returned to the Philippines and spent some time there in a drug rehabilitation centre. The offender sold the property where they had been residing and gave her a share of the proceeds, amounting to about $60,000. He understood that she was to use part of that sum in the purchase of property in the Philippines. With his share he purchased a property at Kungala. The offender began a relationship with another woman. He listed the Kungala property for sale. On 15 February 2004 the deceased returned to Australia and went to the property at Kungala to visit the offender and their family. He was expecting her. She told the children she was intending to return to the Philippines and asked the offender to let her take back with her the youngest of the children, a girl then three months short of her tenth birthday. She told the offender that in the Philippines she could get one thousand pesos for a virgin. He refused. The deceased asked the child herself if she would return with her to the Philippines and the child refused. The deceased again asked the offender to let her take the child and again he refused. The deceased became agitated and the argument became violent. The offender took the deceased by the throat and, in an account he later gave to the police, “half choked” her before pushing her onto a chair. The deceased was alive, but wheezing and gasping. The offender told her to get her things together, intending to drive her away to begin her journey home. He went to attend to the car. When he returned to where the deceased was he…

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 Frost

Details

AGLC: R v Frost [2008] NSWSC 220
Case: [2008] NSWSC 220
Decision Date: 17 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Frost, the respondent pleaded guilty to manslaughter and the case proceeded in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent, Frost, had been charged with murder but subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a lesser included offence. The plea was accepted by the Crown and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Frost, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the plea of guilty, and the mitigating factors presented. The Crown argued for a significant custodial sentence, given the gravity of the offence. Frost's legal representatives submitted that while the offence was serious, there were substantial mitigating factors that warranted a lesser sentence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged the severity of the offence but also recognised the substantial mitigating factors presented. The court found that Frost's plea of guilty, his remorse, and his background warranted a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence and retribution with the mitigating circumstances. After considering all the evidence and submissions, the court sentenced Frost to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period.

The court ordered that Frost be remanded in custody until the completion of any previous sentences he was serving, and thereafter be transferred to a correctional facility to commence the sentence imposed by the court.

Orders