R v Lane (No 4) - [2018] NSWSC 1898

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lane (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1898
Hearing dates: 10 December 2018
Decision date: 12 December 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 6 years

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – manslaughter – additional offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm taken into account – single punch – deceased sustained fatal injury upon hitting roadway – alcohol-fuelled violence – limited antecedents but in breach of conditional liberty – mental health considerations – entering custody for third time – previous custodial conditions onerous – hardship to elderly mother
CRIME – sentencing – delay – six year delay caused by defence to both murder and manslaughter and appeals against conviction for manslaughter – conviction ultimately quashed by High Court of Australia – subsequent plea to manslaughter – whether sentence reduction appropriate for utilitarian value of plea – no utilitarian value in offer to plead to manslaughter before first trial where full defence pursued and subsequent appeal against conviction – small utilitarian value in plea shortly before retrial
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 59(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(j)
Cases Cited: Lane v R [2017] NSWCCA 46
R H McL v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452; [2000] HCA 46
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v Lane (No 3) [2015) NSWSC 118
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Paul Ian Lane
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Campbell (Crown)
Mr E Ozen SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2012/289582

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mr Paul Ian Lane ("the offender") is to be sentenced for the manslaughter of Mr Peter Morris at Casino on the night of 15/16 September 2012. He has pleaded guilty to the offence but only after a rather convoluted history of proceedings through the courts which I will say more about later.
Manslaughter is an offence for which the prescribed maximum penalty is imprisonment for 25 years.

The offence

On the evening of 15 September 2012 the offender was drinking at the Commercial Hotel at Casino with friends. The deceased, Mr Morris, was at the hotel with his friend, Christopher Schwager. The offender and Mr Morris were strangers to each other and there is no suggestion of there being any interaction between them in the hotel.
At 11.10pm the offender was ejected from the hotel because of his intoxication. Shortly before midnight the deceased and Mr Schwager left the hotel as it was about to close. They walked along the street but stopped about 30m away to talk.
At about 11.55pm the offender and his son walked past two other hotel patrons who were waiting for a taxi. The agreed facts say that the offender "had his arm stretched out and, as he was walking past, he veered towards them and made a confrontational gesture at them". He did not…

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 Lane (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Lane (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1898
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1898
Decision Date: 12 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lane (No 4) involved the sentencing of the appellant, Lane, for manslaughter and related offences. The incident arose from a single punch that resulted in the deceased striking the roadway and sustaining a fatal injury. The court had to consider additional offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that were taken into account during sentencing. Lane's actions were alcohol-fuelled, and he had limited criminal antecedents but had breached the conditions of his conditional liberty. Mental health considerations were also relevant, along with the hardship the sentence would impose on his elderly mother.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the delay in the proceedings warranted a reduction in sentence and the consideration of additional offences in the sentencing process. The court had to assess the delay's impact on the case, which spanned six years due to defence strategies and appeals. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate weight to give to the additional offences and whether the delay had any utilitarian value. The court was also required to balance these factors against the need for deterrence and the principles of sentencing for manslaughter.

The court found that the six-year delay did not warrant a sentence reduction as the delay was not due to any fault of the prosecution and had little utilitarian value. The court considered the additional offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, noting that they were relevant to the overall culpability and context of the incident. The court also took into account the mental health issues and the impact on Lane's elderly mother. After weighing these factors, the court determined the appropriate sentence, ensuring it reflected the seriousness of the manslaughter and the mitigating circumstances.

The final orders included the imposition of a sentence that reflected the court's comprehensive consideration of the manslaughter, the additional offences, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court's reasoning was based on a balanced approach that recognised the gravity of the manslaughter, the delay in proceedings, and the personal circumstances of the appellant.

Orders