R v Howard - [2000] NSWSC 876

CITATION: R v Howard [2000] NSWSC 876

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70055/98

HEARING DATE(S): 22 May, 11 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 31 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Peter Andrew Howard

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

COUNSEL : M. Barr (Crown)
P. Zahra (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Prisoner)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Vaughan (1991) 56 A Crim R 355
R v Ditfort (unreported, NSWCCA, 17 March 1992)

DECISION: See para 37

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Thursday 31 August 2000

070055/98 REGINA v PETER ANDREW HOWARD
SENTENCE
1   HIS HONOUR: On the presentation of an indictment before this Court on 22 May 2000, Peter Andrew Howard pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter. He is convicted of that crime and it is my task to pass sentence. I received evidence and heard submissions on sentence on 11 August 2000.
2   The deceased, Adam Holbrough, was born on 5 January 1996, so he was only eight months old when he died. In September 1996 his mother, Kolene Holbrough, was living in a de facto relationship with the prisoner, who was in effect Adam’s de facto stepfather.
3   On the morning of 26 September 1996 Adam was left at home in the care of the prisoner whilst his mother was out at the shops. However, at about 9.30 am the prisoner summoned an ambulance to the infant’s home and the child was found to have stopped breathing and to have no pulse. The ambulance officers endeavoured to resuscitate Adam and he was taken to Bathurst Base Hospital where resuscitation efforts were continued. The patient was then transferred to Westmead Children’s Hospital and admitted to the intensive care unit where he remained in a critical condition until life was pronounced extinct on 27 September 1996.
4   The post mortem examination was conducted by Dr Ellis of the Department of Forensic Medicine. He found bleeding in two layers over the brain, together with significant bleeding and some damage in both eyes. There was also some bruising to which I shall later refer, but I observe that the doctor did not consider that that bruising contributed directly to death. Death, in the opinion of Dr Ellis, was due to the effect of injury to the head and, absent significant impact trauma, the doctor concluded that this type of traumatic injury “was most probably caused by severe shaking of the infant with repeated bending forwards and backwards of the head”.
5   There is evidence from a number of sources of admissions made by the prisoner concerning the manner in which the injuries were inflicted. The various accounts given by the prisoner as to how and in what circumstances he caused the fatal injuries were as follows:

(i) The first account appears to have been that which the prisoner gave to 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 Howard

Details

AGLC: R v Howard [2000] NSWSC 876
Case: [2000] NSWSC 876
Decision Date: 31 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the case of Regina v Peter Andrew Howard was heard by Studdert J. Howard pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter, having caused the death of an eight-month-old child, Adam Holbrough, through severe shaking. The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the objective gravity of the crime, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and relevant sentencing principles.

The court considered various factors, including the prisoner's criminal history, his previous experience causing harm to a child, and his expression of remorse and willingness to engage in rehabilitation. Studdert J found that the offender's actions were dangerous and unlawful, and that the death of a young child warranted a sentence that reflected the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court also noted the significant discount for the offender's guilty plea and the time already spent in custody.

In imposing the sentence, the court referred to previous cases involving similar offences and found that the appropriate sentence in this case was seven years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and six months. This sentence aimed to address the objective gravity of the crime while also considering the subjective circumstances of the offender and the need for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that Peter Andrew Howard be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of seven years and six months, to be backdated to 22 August 1999, and to expire on 21 February 2007. The non-parole period was set at five years and six months, with the first date of eligibility for parole being 22 February 2005.

Orders