R v Jamie CHANT - [2009] NSWSC 290

CITATION: R v Jamie CHANT [2009] NSWSC 290
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 16/03/2009, 17/04/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 April 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: Under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the offender is convicted of the third count in the indictment of Concealed serious indictable offence of another person (manslaughter) and the fifth counrt in the indictment of Improperly interfere with corpse or human remains but no other penalty has been imposed upon him.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Concealing a serious indictable offence - Improperly interfering with human remains.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

PARTIES: Regina v Jamie Chant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/16232003

COUNSEL: C Everson - Crown
M Ainsworth - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
R Byrnes - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 17 APRIL 2009

2008/16232003 REGINA v Jamie CHANT
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 16 March 2009 the Offender Jamie Chant pleaded guilty before me on arraignment to two charges. The first was a charge of concealing a serious indictable offence and the second a charge of improperly interfering with human remains. The first charge was an alternative count to a charge of accessory after the fact to an offence of murder. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty to the offence of concealing a serious indictable offence in full discharge of the indictment so far as the charge of accessory after the fact was concerned.

2 On that occasion a number of reports were handed up into evidence and the Offender gave evidence before me. There was also a Statement of Agreed Facts. The matter did not proceed to finality because I raised a concern that the principal Offender, his mother, was to stand trial and that, as I understood it, she was defending the charge of murder on the basis that the killing of her husband, the Offender's father, was an accident. Therefore it seemed to me inappropriate to deal with the Offender in respect of a charge of concealing a serious offence when, firstly, we did not know whether a serious offence had been committed and, secondly, what that serious offence was if it were committed. The matter therefore was stood over pending the outcome of the trial of his mother, for the murder of his father.

3 The Crown intended to call and in fact did call the Offender to give evidence in the Crown case against his mother. The trial of the mother proceeded and the Offender gave evidence in the Crown case. Part of that evidence was significant because his mother was maintaining that the shooting of the father was an accident, yet the Offender gave evidence that his mother had never suggested to him that the shooting was accidental. One of the most poignant moments during…

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 Jamie CHANT

Details

AGLC: R v Jamie Chant [2009] NSWSC 290
Case: [2009] NSWSC 290
Decision Date: 17 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Jamie Chant was heard. Chant was charged with concealing a serious indictable offence and improperly interfering with human remains. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentence for Chant, considering the severity of his actions and the impact on the victim's family.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the culpability of Chant's actions and determining a sentence that reflected the gravity of his crime. The court had to consider various factors, including the circumstances of the offence, the degree of culpability, and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family. The court also had to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and served as a deterrent to others who might commit similar offences.

The court found that Chant's actions were premeditated and involved a significant degree of culpability. The court considered the trauma caused to the victim's family and the impact of the crime on the community. In determining the sentence, the court took into account the need for denunciation, deterrence, and the protection of the community. The court ultimately decided that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of Chant's actions.

The court ordered that Chant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details of the sentence to be determined after a further hearing. The court also ordered that Chant pay a fine and make reparations to the victim's family. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions and ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime committed.

Orders