R v Jarrod Mitchell - [2016] NSWSC 1855

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jarrod Mitchell [2016] NSWSC 1855
Hearing dates: 12 & 13 December 2016
Date of orders: 21 December 2016
Decision date: 21 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to an overall term of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 1 March 2016 with a non-parole period of 2 years ending on 28 February 2018.

Catchwords: Sentencing – Manslaughter – Excessive self defence
Legislation Cited: s 44, Crimes (Sentencing Review) Act 1999 (NSW)
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Queen
Jarrod Mitchell
Representation:
Counsel:
P E Barrett (Crown)
A Moen (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mallinson + Rake Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/87829
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

On 23 March 2015 at Rosebery Jarrod Mitchell killed Alex Bargiatakis. (For ease of reference, I refer to the offender, the victim and the other witnesses – all of whom were young men – by their first names, which is how they spoke of each other. Of course, I mean no disrespect by so doing.) Jarrod was charged on that date with murder, for which he was committed for trial. Ultimately, he was arraigned on an indictment charging him with murder and, in the alternative, with the offence of manslaughter. On 12 December 2016 he pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but guilty to the charge of manslaughter. The Crown accepted this plea in full discharge of the indictment. The basis for the Crown’s acceptance of the plea is its acceptance (in the circumstances, entirely justified) that Jarrod killed Alex in self-defence, using force which he believed was necessary to defend himself but, which was, as it turned out, excessive. As will be clear from the circumstances in which Alex came to be killed, it may be doubted that the force used by Jarrod, which tragically resulted in Alex’ death, was indeed unreasonable and I have considered whether, in light of his evidence about what happened, which was not the subject of significant dispute, the plea should be allowed to stand. However, this is a matter which Jarrod is entitled to admit by virtue of his plea and, accordingly, although I have worrying doubts about the question, I have decided that it is appropriate to permit the plea to stand. It follows that Jarrod must be sentenced on the basis that, indeed, the force he used was, in all the circumstances, unreasonably excessive as an objective matter, although he thought it was necessary to defend himself from Alex’ attack upon him.
Jarrod was arrested on 23 March 2015 and remained in custody until 27 July 2015 when he was granted bail, remaining on bail until 3 July 2016 when he was returned to custody and he has been in custody ever since. It is agreed that the entire period of his custody, a total of 296 days, must be taken into account, one way or another, in his…

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 Jarrod Mitchell

Details

AGLC: R v Jarrod Mitchell [2016] NSWSC 1855
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1855
Decision Date: 21 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jarrod Mitchell was charged with manslaughter and faced trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The circumstances surrounding the case involved a violent altercation where Mitchell fatally stabbed a man. The primary issue for the court to determine was whether Mitchell's actions constituted excessive self-defence or if they amounted to manslaughter. The court had to examine the evidence surrounding the incident, including Mitchell's version of events, the behaviour of the deceased, and the legal principles governing self-defence and proportionality in such violent encounters.

The legal issues at the heart of the case centred on the principles of self-defence and the proportionality of the response. The court needed to consider whether Mitchell's actions were a reasonable response to the perceived threat, given the circumstances as he understood them. The court also had to assess whether the force used by Mitchell was excessive in relation to the threat faced. These considerations required a careful examination of the evidence presented and the application of legal standards to determine if Mitchell's actions were justified under the law.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while Mitchell's actions were in response to an immediate threat, the level of force used was excessive. The court concluded that Mitchell's actions, while initially defensive, escalated beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect himself. The court acknowledged the difficult circumstances faced by Mitchell but ultimately determined that the charge of manslaughter was appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in self-defence cases and highlighted that excessive force, even in a defensive situation, could result in criminal liability.

The final orders of the court included a conviction for manslaughter and a sentence to be determined. The judgment underscored the need for individuals to exercise reasonable force in self-defence, balancing their actions with the proportionality of the threat faced. The case serves as a reminder of the critical importance of understanding the limits of self-defence in the context of criminal law.

Orders