Legal Research
Cases
R v Harris

R v Harris

Case [2007] NSWSC 1417 13 December 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v HARRIS [2007] NSWSC 1417

HEARING DATE(S): 7 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a non-parole period of four years to date from 21 December 2005. The first date eligible for release on parole is 20 December 2009. Specify a balance of term of three years commencing on 21 December 2009 and expiring on 20 December 2012

CATCHWORDS: MANSLAUGHTER - unlawful and dangerous act - stabbing in domestic context

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Dally [2000] NSWCCA 162
R v Horton [1999] NSWSC 983
R v Sherry [2000] NSWCCA 35
R v Whiting [2002] NSWSC 827

PARTIES: Regina
Peter HARRIS (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/00004369

COUNSEL: P Barnett SC (Crown)
G Turnbull SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh
Murphys Lawyers (Offender)

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

BELL J

Thursday 13 December 2007

2006/00004369 R v Peter Brian HARRIS
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: On 5 October 2007 Peter Brian Harris was arraigned on an indictment that charged him with the murder of Michelle Irene Sparkes at Long Jetty on 21 December 2005. He pleaded that he was not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the indictment.

2 The offender is to be sentenced for the manslaughter of the deceased on the basis of a statement of agreed facts, which forms part of exhibit “A”.

3 At the date of the offence the offender, who was 53 years of age, was living in rented premises in Long Jetty. Also residing at the premises were the deceased, who was aged 41 years, and a man named Raymond Winch.

4 The offender and the deceased were both alcoholics who spent time together and who socialised within the same group. In addition to abusing alcohol, the deceased was prone to illicit drug use and to the abuse of prescribed medication. The combination made her aggressive at times. The two of them had a volatile relationship, which included verbal and physical confrontations.

5 On 20 December 2005 the offender was observed by staff at the local Liquorland store with a cut to the top of his head and a bloodshot eye. He said that the deceased had caused his injuries. Whatever tension there may have been between the two of them that day it does not appear to have been of any moment and they commenced 21 December on amicable terms.

6 Generally the offender, the deceased and Raymond Winch were on good terms. On 12 December the offender made a reservation for three at a local hotel for 23 December with a view to celebrating the deceased’s 42nd birthday.

7 At 8.00am on the morning of 21 December the offender and the deceased called to neighbouring premises where they shared a drink with some friends. A little before 11.00am the offender purchased two four-litre casks of wine from…

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 Harris

Details

AGLC: R v Harris [2007] NSWSC 1417
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1417
Decision Date: 13 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harris, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent stabbed the deceased in a domestic setting, resulting in his death. The case involved issues surrounding the application of the unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter doctrine, as well as the circumstances leading up to the stabbing.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondent's actions constituted an unlawful and dangerous act that led to the death of the deceased. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the respondent had the requisite mens rea for manslaughter. The court had to assess the respondent's state of mind and whether there was a causal link between the act and the death.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the respondent's actions were indeed unlawful and dangerous, as they involved the use of a knife in a domestic setting. The court found that the respondent had the necessary mens rea for manslaughter, as he intended to cause harm to the deceased. The court concluded that the respondent's actions were a significant contributing factor to the death, and therefore, he was guilty of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Victoria convicted the respondent of manslaughter and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. The court determined that the appropriate sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the respondent's culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of addressing violence in domestic settings and the need for appropriate sentencing in such cases.

Orders