Legal Research
Cases
R v Lawrence

R v Lawrence

Case [2024] NSWDC 485 17 October 2024

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Provocation

Intellectual Impairment

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485
Hearing dates: 11 October 2024
Date of orders: 17 October 2024
Decision date: 17 October 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
Orders
(1)   The offender, having pleaded guilty, is convicted of the offence.
(2)   I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months to commence on 30 June 2023 and expire on 29 December 2030.
(3)   I impose a non-parole period of 4 years 10 months to expire on 29 April 2028.
(4)   The earliest date the offender is eligible for release to parole is 29 April 2028.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act – provocation – intellectual impairment – reduction in moral culpability – general and specific deterrence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23
Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96
Brown v R [2024] NSWCCA 136
DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82
DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
Director of Public Prosecutions v De LaRosa [2010] 205 A Crim R 1
Giles-Adam v R; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122
KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291
R v A1 (No. 6) [2019] NSWSC 1581
R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125
R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13
R v White (Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 June 1998, unreported)
TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185
Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Allan Lawrence (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms Keay (Crown)
Mr Fraser (Accused)

File Number(s): 2023/00131715
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence manslaughter contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment with no standard non parole period.
The maximum penalty for the offence is an indication of its seriousness and acts as a sentencing guidepost or reference point.
Admitted on behalf of the Crown were the following: -

Charge certificate.

Notice of committal.

Agreed facts dated 29 April 2024.

Criminal history.

Custodial history.

Victim impact statement from offender’s sister.

Admitted on behalf of the Offender were the following:

Report of Dr Molly Shafer and accompanying CV.

Letter to the Court from foster parents.

Agreed facts

Around the middle of the day on 24 April 2023 the offender, in the company of Jamie Webb, attended the unit of Fiona Condran in Johanson Crescent, Mangerton where they smoked cannabis. Several others were present at the time.
Approximately one hour after they arrived, the deceased, Morgan Brown, in the company of Danny Williams, knocked on the door of the unit which was then opened by Fiona Condron's brother. At the time, the offender was in the kitchen whereas several other occupants were seated on the lounge. The deceased and Williams were not known…

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485
Case: [2024] NSWDC 485
Decision Date: 17 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lawrence involved the defendant, Lawrence, who was convicted of manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's background. Lawrence had pleaded guilty to the offence, which stemmed from an unlawful and dangerous act that resulted in the death of another person. The court also considered whether the defendant acted under provocation and whether he had an intellectual impairment, which may have affected his moral culpability. The sentencing process involved weighing factors of general and specific deterrence in determining the appropriate punishment.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the severity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for punishment and deterrence. The court had to determine whether the act was provoked and whether the defendant's intellectual impairment warranted a reduction in moral culpability. Additionally, the court needed to consider the principles of general deterrence, which aim to discourage others from committing similar offences, and specific deterrence, which aims to prevent the defendant from reoffending. The court also had to balance these considerations with the defendant's background and circumstances.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's guilty plea. The court found that the act was not provoked and did not warrant a reduction in moral culpability due to the defendant's intellectual impairment. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 10 months. The court determined that this sentence appropriately balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court set the commencement date of the sentence as 30 June 2023 and the expiry date as 29 December 2030, with the non-parole period expiring on 29 April 2028. The defendant is eligible for release to parole on 29 April 2028.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders

(1) The offender, having pleaded guilty, is convicted of the offence.

(2) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months to commence on 30 June 2023 and expire on 29 December 2030.

(3) I impose a non-parole period of 4 years 10 months to expire on 29 April 2028.

(4) The earliest date the offender is eligible for release to parole is 29 April 2028.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485

Most Recent Citation

R v Webb [2025] NSWDC 112

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

R v Webb
[2025] NSWDC 112 Para 4

…Webb, Lawrence, went significantly further, he stabbed fatally one of the robbers. He has been dealt with for the crime of manslaughter: R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485 (Judge Fitzsimmons SC). Webb is not to be sentenced for that offence, while he was involved in the events that led to the death of Mr Brown, he playe…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 18 of 18 shown

Brown v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 136 Para 94

…the period of continuous incarceration which in this case, allowing for the backdating of the unrelated sentence, is from 23 December 2022: Brown v R [2024] NSWCCA 136. In this context I have considered the overall non parole period and the overall head sentence.…
Pender v R
[2023] NSWCCA 291 Para 61

…including, for example DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200; R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10; R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13; and Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291, whilst there is, of course, always a need for a sentencing judge to make an assessment of objective seriousness, there is no requirement that a sent…
TM v R
[2023] NSWCCA 185 Para 88

…of the statutory ratio of the non-parole period. I find that this is indeed a suitable case for leniency in considering the non-parole period: TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185 at [103] (Yehia J with whom Payne and Stern JJA agreed) for the following reasons:…
R v Eaton
[2023] NSWCCA 125 Para 61

…t, as has been recognised in a number of recent decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal, including, for example DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200; R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10; R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13; and Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291, whilst there is, of course, always a need for a sentencing…
Giles-Adams v R; Preca v R
[2023] NSWCCA 122 Para 79

…be imposed, the plea of guilty is a further mitigating factor. As Yehia J (with whom Chen and Wright JJ agreed) observed in Giles-Adam v R; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122, “the utilitarian value of a plea of guilty and the willingness of an offender to facilitate the course of justice are conceptually different." As he…
DC v R
[2023] NSWCCA 82 Para 84

…As to the effect of a mental condition reducing an offender’s moral culpability, Yehia J (with whom Rothman and Wilson JJ agreed) in DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 observed:…
R v Sharrouf
[2023] NSWCCA 13 Para 61

…of the Court of Criminal Appeal, including, for example DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200; R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10; R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13; and Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291, whilst there is, of course, always a need for a sentencing judge to make an assessment of objective seriousness, t…
KM v The King
[2023] NSWCCA 10 Para 61

…in a number of recent decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal, including, for example DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200; R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10; R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13; and Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291, whilst there is, of course, always a need for a sentencing judge to make an assessm…
DH v R
[2022] NSWCCA 200 Para 61

…In any event, as has been recognised in a number of recent decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal, including, for example DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200; R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125; KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10; R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13; and Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291, whilst there is, of course, always a need for a…
Paterson v R
[2021] NSWCCA 273 Para 60

…fence involves a wide range of conduct and accordingly some care must be taken to avoid placing the offender on some hypothetical range: Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 at [33].…
Baden v R
[2020] NSWCCA 23 Para 80

…Bell P (as his Honour then was) in Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23 observed: –…
R v A1 (No. 6)
[2019] NSWSC 1581 Para 66

…As to the accused's submission that provocation would be considered a mitigating factor, Johnson J in R v A1 (No. 6) [2019] NSWSC 1581 helpfully identified several authorities dealing with this issue. Reference was made to the judgment of Spigelman CJ (Sheller JA and Newman J agreeing) in R v White (Court of Crimina…
Luque v R
[2017] NSWCCA 226 Para 114

…e significance in his offending. [75] The sentencing task should not be approached in “an unduly technical or restrictive way”: see Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 at [114]. In determining whether a causal link or nexus exists, a sentencing Judge should not approach the task as though deciding the issue of causation in…
Ryan v Regina
[2017] NSWCCA 209 Para 15

…be capable of demonstrating a link, direct or indirect, between the offending and the mental health issues in question: see Ryan v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 209 at [15] per Hamill J (Leeming JA and Button J agreeing).” (Emphasis added). Whilst the offender’s impairment cannot excuse his conduct, I accept that it does hav…
Hamidzadeh v R
[2012] NZCA 550 Para 68

…Johnson J referred to similar remarks of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Hamidzadeh v R (2013) 1 NZLR 369; [2012] NZCA 550 that the approach to provocation in sentencing will be “very much fact dependent" however factors may well include “the nature, duration and gravity of the alleged provocative conduct; the…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 52

…port of Dr Schaefer and submissions were made consistent with the principles in Director of Public Prosecutions v De LaRosa [2010] 205 A Crim R 1 and Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120.…
Barlow v R
[2008] NSWCCA 96 Para 73

…t the Court cannot condone the offender’s conduct. In this respect, the Crown’s reference to the observations of McClellan CJ at CL in Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96 to the following effect are apposite: –…
Tyne v Tasmania
[2005] TASSC 119 Para 67

…In Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119, Blow J (as the CJ then was) said at [28]: –…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 48)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Lawrence [2024] NSWDC 485
Hearing dates:	11 October 2024
Date of orders:	17 October 2024
Decision date:	17 October 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	Orders (1) The offender, having pleaded guilty, is convicted of the offence. (2) I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months to commence on 30 June 2023 and expire on 29 December 2030. (3) I impose a non-parole period of 4 years 10 months to expire on 29 April 2028. (4) The earliest date the offender is eligible for release to parole is 29 April 2028.
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentencing – manslaughter – unlawful and dangerous act – provocation – intellectual impairment – reduction in moral culpability – general and specific deterrence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23 Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96 Brown v R [2024] NSWCCA 136 DC v R [2023] NSWCCA 82 DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 Director of Public Prosecutions v De LaRosa [2010] 205 A Crim R 1 Giles-Adam v R; Preca v R [2023] NSWCCA 122 KM v R [2023] NSWCCA 10 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 Pender v R [2023] NSWCCA 291 R v A1 (No. 6) [2019] NSWSC 1581 R v Eaton [2023] NSWCCA 125 R v Sharrouf [2023] NSWCCA 13 R v White (Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 June 1998, unreported) TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185 Tyne v Tasmania (2005) 15 Tas R 221; [2005] TASSC 119
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Allan Lawrence (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Keay (Crown) Mr Fraser (Accused)
File Number(s):	2023/00131715
Publication restriction:	Nil