R v Hansell - [2007] NSWSC 1136

CITATION: R v HANSELL [2007] NSWSC 1136

HEARING DATE(S): 31 August 2007 (Submissions on Sentence)

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: Shayne William Hansell, for the manslaughter of Troy Carney, sentenced to a non parole period of 2 years to date from today, 12 October 2007 to expire 11 October 2009, the additional term being one year and four months expiring 11 February 2011. Eligible for release to parole on 12 October 2009. (7 days pre-sentence custody taken into account in imposing sentence).

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - Manslaughter - Excessive self-defence - significant degree of recklessness.

PARTIES: Regina - Crown
Offender - Shayne William HANSELL

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/2879

COUNSEL: Crown - Mr TR Bailey
Offender - Mr P Boulten SC

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh Solicitor of Public Prosecutions
A Newson (Murphys Lawyers Inc)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

12 OCTOBER 2007

2006/2879 REGINA v SHAYNE WILLIAM HANSELL
JUDGMENT

1 The offender, Shayne William Hansell, pleaded guilty to Manslaughter on 6 July 2007 in full discharge of an indictment charging Murder. The Crown accepted the plea on the basis that the offender’s conduct caused the death of the victim, Troy Douglas Carney, on 29 January 2005, that the offender believed that his conduct was necessary in defence of himself or of others, but that it was not a reasonable response in the circumstances, in that the offender used excessive force. The offence of Manslaughter carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

2 The offender stands to be sentenced on the basis of an agreed statement of facts. No other material relating to the objective circumstances of the offence was provided. That statement of facts establishes that on 26 January 2005, the victim and his girlfriend, Ms Picker, went to the offender’s home to see the offender’s younger brother, Kenneth Hansell. The victim was moderately affected by alcohol at the time of his arrival at about 8:15pm.

3 Kenneth Hansell and the victim consumed a number of full-strength beers over the following hour, at which time the offender arrived with his wife and their seven year old daughter. The offender consumed two glasses of wine with his brother and the victim, both of whom were on good terms and were engaging in vigorous “horseplay”. The evening continued in this fashion until about 11pm.

4 Shortly after 11pm, the offender’s wife and their daughter left the premises to buy cigarettes at a local service station. The offender, his brother and the victim went outside, then returned to the lounge-room. By this time, the offender’s brother was telling the victim to go home and the play fighting had escalated to the point where the offender’s brother challenged the victim to hit him. The victim responded by removing a bracelet he was wearing and passing it to his girlfriend, who suggested they leave. Ms Picker left the house and went to her car, expecting the victim to follow.

5 The offender’s wife…

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 Hansell

Details

AGLC: R v Hansell [2007] NSWSC 1136
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1136
Decision Date: 12 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Hansell, the High Court of Australia considered the appropriate sentence for an individual convicted of manslaughter through the use of excessive self-defence. The accused, Hansell, had been involved in a confrontation that resulted in the death of the victim, where it was established that the accused's actions were in self-defence but exceeded what was necessary in the circumstances. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the significant degree of recklessness exhibited by Hansell.

The central legal issue before the court was the balance between the degree of self-defence and the recklessness demonstrated by the accused during the incident. The court had to evaluate the gravity of the offence and the culpability of Hansell in light of the excessive force used. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the mitigating factors, such as the absence of premeditation, and weigh these against the severe consequences of Hansell's actions.

The court examined the principles of excessive self-defence and recklessness, ultimately determining that while the accused acted in self-defence, the degree of force used was disproportionate and exhibited a high level of recklessness. The court emphasised that while the act was not premeditated, the significant recklessness and the fatal outcome warranted a substantial sentence. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the mitigating factors and the severity of the offence, ensuring that the punishment was commensurate with the degree of recklessness and the harm caused. The final orders were made in accordance with the court's reasoning and the applicable legal standards.

Orders