R v King - [2007] NSWSC 1134

CITATION: R v KING [2007] NSWSC 1134
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 2007; 30 August 2007; 28 September 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Fullerton J

DECISION: Non-parole period of 22 months with a balance of term of 26 months.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Manslaughter - Sentence - Excessive self-defence - Low end objective seriousness - Age of offender - Outstanding prospects of rehabilitation

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Bolt (2001) 126 A Crim R 284
R v Hamilton; R v Sandilands [2007] NSWSC 452
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
R v Muddle [2004] NSWSC 403
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76.

PARTIES: Anthony William King (Offender)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/4532

COUNSEL: P Winch (Offender)
P Leask (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

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

FULLERTON J

FRIDAY 12 OCTOBER 2007

2006/4532 REGINA v ANTHONY WILLIAM KING

SENTENCE
HER HONOUR:

1 On Monday 24 October 2005, Anthony William King, who I will refer to as the offender, was charged with the murder of Jeremiah Faraimo. Mr Faraimo died as a result of a single stab wound to the neck. He was 19 years of age.

2 The entry wound was on the left side of the neck and measured 33 mm in length. It passed through the soft tissue of the neck and entered the left carotid artery, and thereafter the right carotid artery, terminating in an exit wound on the right side of the neck. The stab wound was oriented from left to right approximately horizontally at a depth of 155 mm sufficient to sever both the left and right carotid arteries.

3 At the time of the incident that resulted in the death of the deceased the offender had just turned 18 years of age eight days earlier on 16 October 2005. By reason of him being 18 years and eight days on the date that he was charged he was detained on remand as an adult prisoner. He has remained in custody since that time. Currently he has been in custody for one year 11 months and 19 days.

4 On 25 October 2006 the offender was committed to the Supreme Court for trial. He was arraigned on 13 April 2007 and pleaded not guilty to murder. The trial was listed to commence before me on 18 June 2007. On that date the offender pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty in full satisfaction of the indictment. In so doing the Crown acknowledged that the uncontested facts supported no other conclusion than that the statutory alternative of manslaughter was the appropriate charge by reason of the offender’s excessive use of force…

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 King

Details

AGLC: R v King [2007] NSWSC 1134
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1134
Decision Date: 12 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v King was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, King, was convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of a 15-year-old boy. The incident arose from a confrontation where King claimed he acted in self-defence against an attack. The central issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter conviction and whether the circumstances justified a low end objective seriousness, considering the defendant's age and potential for rehabilitation.

The court examined whether the circumstances of the offence warranted a sentence at the lower end of the scale for manslaughter. This consideration included the principle of excessive self-defence, the age of the offender, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court assessed the evidence provided regarding King's background, including his age at the time of the offence and the mitigating factors presented on his behalf. It was also necessary to determine if these factors warranted a reduced sentence due to the low objective seriousness of the crime.

The court concluded that the mitigating factors, including King's young age at the time of the offence and his prospects for rehabilitation, justified a sentence at the lower end of the scale for manslaughter. The court found that the circumstances of the offence, while serious, did not reach the level of objective seriousness that would warrant a higher sentence. The court balanced these considerations and determined that the sentence should reflect the mitigating factors presented. The court ordered that King be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the low end objective seriousness and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders