R v Hill - [2019] NSWSC 733

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hill [2019] NSWSC 733
Hearing dates: 10 May 2019
Decision date: 21 June 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years 6 months.

Catchwords: SENTENCING – manslaughter by substantial impairment – schizophrenia – subjective considerations on sentence – impact of mental illness on objective seriousness and moral culpability – mental illness heightening danger to community – plea of guilty at earliest opportunity – special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 23A, 25A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 28
Cases Cited: GC v R [2018] NSWCCA 280
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Keceski (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 10 August 1993, unrep)
R v Wilson (2005) 153 A Crim R 257; [2005] NSWCCA 112
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Peter Lindsay Hill
Representation:
Counsel:
A McCarthy (Crown)
R Wilson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/329384

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Peter Lindsay Hill, who hereafter I will refer to as the offender, has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of John Patrick Hill, at Darlinghurst on 3 November 2016. The two men were not related, indeed were strangers, before their paths crossed that day. The offender randomly attacked Mr Hill as the two men were about to pass each other on the footpath on Crown Street, Darlinghurst. The offender punched and kicked Mr Hill, causing him to fall backwards and strike his head. That injury caused his death.
The offender was originally charged with murder. Following his arrest, he was examined by two forensic psychiatrists, one retained by the defence and the other by the Crown. The psychiatrists agreed that, at the time of the offence, the offender was suffering from schizophrenia and that, in the manner that it affected him, his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions that caused Mr Hill’s death was substantially impaired. Accordingly, the offender had available to him a partial defence to the charge of murder, known as manslaughter on the basis of a “substantial impairment by abnormality of mind”, hereinafter referred to as manslaughter by substantial impairment. The offender offered to plead guilty to manslaughter on that basis, and the Crown accepted that plea. I will return to a further consideration of the precise way in which that mental illness impacted on the offender’s responsibility for his actions, later in my judgment.

The offence

The agreed facts of the offence are to the following effect. On the morning of Thursday 3 November 2016, the offender left his residence in Surry Hills and walked north along Crown Street towards Oxford Street. He stopped at an ATM, waited in line, withdrew some money and then continued to Oxford Street, which he crossed against…

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 Hill

Details

AGLC: R v Hill [2019] NSWSC 733
Case: [2019] NSWSC 733
Decision Date: 21 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hill, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter by substantial impairment and faced sentencing in a higher court. The defendant had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, which was considered by the court as a mitigating factor. The defendant's mental health, specifically schizophrenia, was a significant factor in the sentencing process. The court had to determine how the defendant's mental illness impacted the objective seriousness of the offence, his moral culpability, and the risk he posed to the community.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the defendant's mental state at the time of the offence and its influence on the sentencing. The court needed to balance the mitigating effects of the defendant's mental illness against the aggravating effects of the crime's nature. Additionally, the court had to consider the subjective circumstances, including the defendant's plea of guilty and any other special circumstances that might influence the sentence.

The court determined that while the defendant's schizophrenia did mitigate the moral culpability and the objective seriousness of the offence, it also heightened the danger he posed to the community. The court acknowledged the defendant's early plea of guilty as a factor in his favour. Ultimately, the court decided to impose a sentence that reflected both the mitigating and aggravating aspects of the case, ensuring it was proportionate and just. The court ordered that the defendant be detained in custody for a specified period, taking into account all the relevant factors.

Orders