R v Hunter - [2002] VSC 162

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1537 of 2001

THE QUEEN

DENNIS NEIL HUNTER

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 - 10 April 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 May 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dennis Neil Hunter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 162

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Husband killing wife - Provocation not excluded – Passage of nearly 20 years until circumstances revealed – 7 years prison – 4 years 6 months non-parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Hillman S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J Sutherland	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

You have been found guilty of manslaughter, by a jury that found you not guilty of the murder of your wife, Venda Hunter in October 1981.

You married the deceased in 1965. There were a number of children to the marriage, which had its ups and downs. After living in North-Eastern Victoria for some years, you and your family moved in September 1980 to 4 Furlonger Street, Traralgon. In 1981, you were living there with the deceased, three daughters and a son. The deceased had mental health problems. She was not an affectionate and loving mother to the children. On the contrary, she mistreated the older three, and badly. The evidence I have heard from two of the children has made that very clear. You were upset at how the deceased was treating you and the children.

One night in October 1981, you killed her. I cannot make reasonably precise findings as to what happened on that night. The information that I have as to what happened comes only from your account to the police. You said that you and your wife argued, that she called you names, that she told you that she hated you, and that she came at you with a knife. You told the police that it was not the first time that she had come at you with a knife. You said that on prior occasions you had acted so as to defuse the situation. On this occasion, there was to be no defusing. You hit her on the head 2 or 3 times with a stick. As to why you did so, you were later to make claims that are difficult to reconcile. On the one hand, you spoke of being sick and tired of the hell and misery. You said you wanted your wife to go but she would not go. On the other hand, you claimed that you acted in self defence. On one assessment of your account, it could be inferred that you lost control in the face of provocative acts and words. I treat the jury’s verdict as an acceptance of two positions. The first is that self defence had properly been excluded. The second is that provocation had not been excluded.

You did not act like a man who…

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 Hunter

Details

AGLC: R v Hunter [2002] VSC 162
Case: [2002] VSC 162
Decision Date: 14 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hunter involved the defendant, Hunter, who was convicted of manslaughter for killing his wife. The circumstances surrounding the killing came to light nearly 20 years after the event, leading to Hunter's conviction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Hunter, considering the delayed revelation of the circumstances and the nature of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Hunter's conviction of manslaughter, taking into account the lengthy delay before the circumstances of the killing were revealed. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence with the delayed disclosure of information and the nature of the provocation involved. The court was also required to decide on a suitable non-parole period for Hunter's sentence.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that while the provocation did not exclude the offence of manslaughter, the delay in revealing the circumstances was a significant factor. The court noted the seriousness of the offence, but also recognised the impact of the delay in coming to a conviction. The court sentenced Hunter to seven years in prison, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The court considered these terms to be appropriate given the delayed disclosure of the circumstances and the nature of the provocation involved in the offence.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered that Hunter be imprisoned for seven years, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. This decision was based on the court's consideration of the delayed revelation of the circumstances surrounding the killing, the nature of the provocation, and the gravity of the offence.

Orders