R v Impson - [2018] NSWSC 1490

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Impson [2018] NSWSC 1490
Hearing dates: 22 August 2018
Date of orders: 14 September 2018
Decision date: 14 September 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
Sentenced for murder to imprisonment for 18 years with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – a single stab wound to the back– intent to cause grievous bodily harm – mitigating factors – no pre-planning and spontaneous – offender’s mental illness contributes to offending conduct – reduced moral culpability – low range of objective seriousness – subjective features – criminal history – remorse – low risk of re-offending – reduced weight for general deterrence and specific deterrence – special circumstances – comparable cases – statutory guideposts – imposition of sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 243 FLR 28; 205 A Crim R 1
Isaacs v R (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Letteri [1992] NSWCCA (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 18 March 1992)
R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637
R v Spathis; R v Patsalis [2001] NSWCCA 476
R v Tula [2015] NSWCCA 8
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Fahda [2013] NSWCCA 86
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Rachel Impson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Daleo (Crown)
J Manuell SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/315287

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Rachel Impson, was arraigned on 26 March 2018 before a jury. She entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter on that day but the Crown did not accept that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. Accordingly, the trial proceeded on the charge of murder.
On 24 April 2018, the offender was found guilty of a charge that she, on 26 October 2014, at Windang in the State of New South Wales, did murder Michael Insley (“the deceased”). The offender had been in continuous custody by the time of that verdict from the time of her arrest on 26 October 2014.
The maximum sentence for the crime of murder is imprisonment for life. The standard non-parole period prescribed for the offence is 20 years imprisonment.
The Court may nonetheless impose a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term pursuant to s 21(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW). That course may not be taken if the Court is satisfied that the level of culpability in the circumstances of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can…

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 Impson

Details

AGLC: R v Impson [2018] NSWSC 1490
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1490
Decision Date: 14 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Impson was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Impson, was convicted of the murder of a person who died from a single stab wound to the back. The crime was not pre-planned but occurred in the heat of the moment. The key legal issues the court needed to address were the appropriate sentence for this type of offence, taking into account mitigating factors such as the lack of premeditation, the offender's mental illness, and his remorse. The court also considered the offender's criminal history, the risk of re-offending, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The High Court determined that while the act of stabbing someone to death was undeniably serious, several factors should be considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The lack of premeditation and the spontaneous nature of the crime indicated a lower level of moral culpability. The offender's mental illness, which contributed to his offending conduct, was also a significant mitigating factor. These circumstances warranted a reduced weight for both general and specific deterrence. The court further noted that the offender had expressed remorse and had a low risk of re-offending, which also supported a lesser sentence. The High Court compared the case to similar precedents and considered statutory guideposts to ensure the sentence was just and proportionate to the crime.

After carefully weighing the mitigating and aggravating factors, the court concluded that the sentence should reflect the low range of objective seriousness of the crime, the subjective features of the offender, and the overall context of the case. The High Court decided that the appropriate sentence for Impson was one that recognised the gravity of the offence while also considering the substantial mitigating factors present in this case. The sentence imposed by the lower court was deemed appropriate, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders