R v Joyce Mary CHANT - [2009] NSWSC 593

CITATION: R v Joyce Mary CHANT [2009] NSWSC 593

HEARING DATE(S): 14/04/2009, 05/06/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: In respect of the offence of improperly interfering with human remains the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months to date from 6 November 2007 and expired on 5 September 2008.
In respect of the offence of manslaughter the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 9 months made up of a non-parole period of 3 years 4 months and a balance of term of 17 months. That sentence is to date from 6 June 2008 and the non-parole period is to expire on 5 October 2011 the date upon which the offender is eligible to be released to parole.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Manslaughter - Plea accepted on the basis of provocation - abusive relationship - deceased shot and dismembered by wife - long delay before body identified.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 21A(1)

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335
R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141

PARTIES: Regina v Joyce Mary Chant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/16231

COUNSEL: Crown - M Hobart SC/C Everson
Offender - J Spencer

SOLICITORS: Crown - S Kavanagh
Offender - George Sten & Co

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

JUSTICE HOWIE

FRIDAY 26 JUNE 2009

2008/16231 R v Joyce Mary CHANT
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: In October 1992 a number of body parts were found in and around Sydney. These included a torso wrapped in a bed sheet located at a truck-stop near Kiama and two human legs discovered in the Georges River at Taren Point. The remains were identified as coming from a Caucasian male of about 90 kilograms and approximately 178cm tall. There were no injuries to the body parts other than where they had apparently been severed from the body. They could not be further identified. The offender told her eldest son, Jamie, who was in custody at the time that his father had “abandoned us”.

2 On 5 January 1993, Jamie returned home. He was suspicious of his father’s absence and questioned the offender. She told him that it was his father’s torso that had been found and reported on the news. She said, “We fought, he was shot, I cut him up”. Jamie was told that she still retained the head and hands in two containers full of concrete. Shortly thereafter Jamie helped the offender dispose of the containers. They have never been recovered.

3 The offender reported her husband as missing on 23 March 1993. She stated that he had gone away to the car races on the October long weekend in 1992 and had never been seen or heard from again.

4 On 26 May 2006, the remains were identified by DNA evidence as being the deceased.

5 In November 2007 the offender…

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 Joyce Mary CHANT

Details

AGLC: R v Joyce Mary Chant [2009] NSWSC 593
Case: [2009] NSWSC 593
Decision Date: 26 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Joyce Mary CHANT, the defendant, Joyce Mary CHANT, was charged with manslaughter. The case involved a complex situation where the deceased, her husband, was shot and dismembered. The body was not identified for a considerable period. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the plea of provocation was valid in the context of a prolonged abusive relationship and if it could justify the extreme nature of the defendant's actions. The court had to determine whether the delay in identifying the body and the circumstances surrounding the plea of provocation should influence the sentence imposed.

The court considered the legal framework for sentencing in cases involving manslaughter by provocation. It examined whether the provocation was sufficient to reduce the culpability of the defendant and whether the delay in identification had any bearing on the circumstances of the offence. The court had to balance the gravity of the crime with the mitigating factors presented, including the abusive relationship and the plea of provocation. In doing so, it assessed the impact of these factors on the defendant's culpability and the appropriate sentence.

The court concluded that while the provocation was significant, the extreme nature of the defendant's actions could not be entirely excused. The court recognised the abusive relationship as a mitigating factor but found that it did not fully justify the severity of the crime. The delay in identifying the body was also considered, but it did not alter the fundamental nature of the offence. The court ultimately determined that the sentence should reflect both the mitigating circumstances and the gravity of the crime. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the plea of provocation and the abusive relationship, but also the heinous nature of the act.

The final orders of the court included the sentencing of Joyce Mary CHANT to a term of imprisonment, recognising the mitigating factors while also addressing the severity of the crime. The court's decision provided a nuanced approach to sentencing in cases involving manslaughter by provocation, particularly in the context of a prolonged abusive relationship.

Orders