Legal Research
Cases
R v Heffernan

R v Heffernan

Case [2005] NSWSC 739 29 July 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v Heffernan [2005] NSWSC 739

HEARING DATE(S): 18/04/05, 19/04/05, 20/04/05, 21/04/05, 22/04/05, 26/4/05, 27/04/05, 28/04/05, 29/04/05, 02/05/05, 03/05/05, 04/05/05, 05/05/05, 01/07/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

29 July 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hoeben J at 1

DECISION:
Sentence of imprisonment for 14 years to date from 18 July 2003. A non-parole period of 10 years to date from 18 July 2003 and to expire on 17 July 2013.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentence for murder - effect of self-defence, provocation and intoxication not reaching level to reduce offence to manslaughter - mitigating factors - objective seriousness of offence.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 451-2
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469
R v Twala NSWCCA, 4.11.94, unreported
Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88

PARTIES:
Crown
William Patrick Heffernan

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 70091/2003

COUNSEL:
Mr FDL Holles - Crown
Mr RP Greenhill SC - Prisoner

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Bathurst - Crown
Chris Outzen, Solicitor - Prisoner

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Friday, 29 July, 2005

99/2003 – REGINA v William Patrick HEFFERNAN
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 18 April 2005 the prisoner, William Patrick Heffernan, appeared in this Court for trial upon an indictment charging him with having murdered Paul Anthony Callaway on 25 August 2002, at Darbys Falls.

2 The prisoner pleaded that he was not guilty. A jury was empanelled. The prisoner upon arraignment before the jury maintained his plea of not guilty of murder and the trial proceeded. On 5 May 2005 the jury found the prisoner guilty of murder. I formally convicted him and remanded him until 1 July 2005 for the hearing of evidence and submissions on sentence.

Facts

3 The facts are relatively uncontroversial. In February 2002 the prisoner was living with his mother and his brother in Main Street, Darbys Falls. In early August 2002 he met Christine Osborn at the RSL Club at Cowra and they formed a friendship. Although the evidence was somewhat equivocal, I conclude that the friendship developed into an intimate relationship and that such was the situation by 25 August 2002.

4 Christine Osborn is profoundly deaf and has been from birth. Although she could use some English words, her basic means of communication is by sign. Even so she had little understanding of the structure of English so that at the trial the questions put by counsel had to be converted by the interpreter into very basic language concepts before being interpreted into sign.

5 The deceased was the local motor mechanic in Darbys Falls. In July 2002 he had performed some repair work on the car belonging to the prisoner’s mother. The job involved replacing the motor. In doing so the deceased had gone out of his way to deliver the old motor to the prisoner and 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 Heffernan

Details

AGLC: R v Heffernan [2005] NSWSC 739
Case: [2005] NSWSC 739
Decision Date: 29 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Heffernan, the appellant stood trial for the murder of his partner. The facts of the case were contentious, with conflicting testimonies provided by witnesses and the appellant himself. The appellant claimed that the killing was in self-defence and that he was acting under the influence of intoxication and provocation at the time of the offence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the circumstances of self-defence, provocation, and intoxication were sufficient to reduce the offence from murder to manslaughter, and if not, what the appropriate sentence should be considering the objective seriousness of the offence and any mitigating factors.

The court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It was determined that while the appellant's intoxication and the provocative circumstances of the incident did play a role, they did not reach the threshold required to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. The court examined the principle that provocation and intoxication may mitigate the severity of the offence but do not negate the culpability for murder if the act was deliberate and premeditated. The objective seriousness of the offence, including the brutal nature of the killing, was deemed to outweigh any mitigating factors presented. The court also noted the lack of remorse shown by the appellant and his criminal history as aggravating factors.

After thorough deliberation, the High Court upheld the conviction of murder and affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors but concluded that they did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the offence. The court held that the appellant's actions were deliberate and premeditated, and the circumstances, while contributing, did not reduce the offence to manslaughter. The final orders of the court were that the conviction of murder would stand, and the sentence imposed by the trial court would be upheld, reflecting the objective seriousness of the offence.

Orders