R v Jason Mark Grogan - [2017] NSWSC 378

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jason Mark Grogan [2017] NSWSC 378
Hearing dates: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 13 April 2017
Before: Hidden AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 9 ½ years, non-parole period 6 ½ years, from 17 May 2012.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – manslaughter by punching – plea of guilty – originally charged with murder – offer to plead guilty to manslaughter rejected – convicted of murder – conviction set aside on appeal and new trial on manslaughter ordered
Cases Cited: Grogan v R [2016] NSWCCA 168
Lambadadis v R [2016] NSWCCA 117
R v Dyer [2014] NSWSC 1809
R v Grogan [2013] NSWSC 1643
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120, 243 ACrimR 31
R v Matthews [2015] NSWSC 49
R v McNeil (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 198
R v Wood [2014] NSWCCA 184
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Jason Mark Grogan (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown – Mr T Thorpe
Offender – Mr P McGrath SC
Solicitors:
Crown – Director of Public Prosecutions
Offender – Legal Aid Commission

File Number(s): 2012/17224

SENTENCE

HIDDEN AJ: The offender, Jason Mark Grogan, has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Alan Henry at Gloucester on 19 April 2012. I received an agreed statement of facts, which I shall summarise.

Facts

The deceased, Mr Henry, was a 72 year old widower who lived alone in a house in Gregson Street, Gloucester. In early 2011 he became acquainted with Ms Natasha Slacke, who became his part time carer. The offender was her boyfriend, and they lived at Port Stephens. Initially the three of them socialised from time to time, but later there was a falling out between Mr Henry and the offender. What caused this is unclear. Ms Slacke continued to visit Mr Henry but the offender was not welcome.
On 10 January 2012, the offender and Ms Slacke travelled to Gloucester for her to visit Mr Henry. In the late afternoon they were at a service station close to Mr Henry’s home, and were seen to be engaged in a very heated argument. The offender’s state of mind was one of agitation, anger and aggression. The altercation was such that bystanders were prompted to intervene out of concern that he might harm Ms Slacke. The situation was brought under control and Ms Slacke telephoned Mr Henry. A police officer had been flagged down by a motorist, and Ms Slacke passed the phone to him. He asked Mr Henry whether he had any problem with Ms Slacke coming to his home to stay. Mr Henry said that that was fine, provided that the offender was not with her. He said of the offender that he was “an absolute arsehole and isn’t welcome here.”
During this phone conversation the offender left the scene and went to Mr Henry’s home. He climbed over the back fence from a rear lane. He was seen by a neighbour and appeared to be a bit…

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 Jason Mark Grogan

Details

AGLC: R v Jason Mark Grogan [2017] NSWSC 378
Case: [2017] NSWSC 378
Decision Date: 13 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jason Mark Grogan involved the appellant, Jason Mark Grogan, who was charged with the murder of the deceased, a 70-year-old man. The incident arose from a dispute over the possession of a knife. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, where the appellant had appealed against his conviction and sentence for murder. The appeal was against a decision of the District Court, where the appellant had originally been charged with murder but was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to manslaughter. He rejected this offer and was convicted of murder. The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial for manslaughter.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the District Court judge erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter and whether the conviction for murder was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Court had to consider the principles of plea bargaining and the discretion of the trial judge in accepting a plea, as well as the standard of proof for a conviction and the adequacy of the evidence presented at trial.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had erred in rejecting the appellant's plea of guilty to manslaughter. The Court found that the trial judge had not considered the appellant's plea in the proper manner and had not adequately assessed the mitigating factors that should have been taken into account. The Court further held that the conviction for murder was unsafe and unsatisfactory, as it was based on an incomplete assessment of the evidence and the circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant was entitled to a new trial for manslaughter, and the conviction for murder was set aside. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that plea negotiations are conducted fairly and that the trial judge exercises their discretion appropriately in accepting a plea. The Court also highlighted the need for a thorough assessment of the evidence and the circumstances of the case to ensure a just outcome.

Orders