Legal Research
Cases
R v Monroe

R v Monroe

Case [2003] NSWSC 1271 22 August 2003

Manslaughter

Custodial Sentence

Rehabilitation

Special Circumstances

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
149 A Crim R 478

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Monroe [2003] NSWSC 1271

HEARING DATE(S): 05/03/2003 - 07/03/2003, 10/03/2003 - 14/03/2003, 17/03/2003 - 21/03/2003, 24/03/2003, 26/03/2003 - 28/03/2003, 10/06/2003.

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

DECISION: James Stuart Monroe is sentenced to imprisonment for 7 ½ years commencing on 28 March 2003 and concluding on 27 September 2010. I fix the non-parole period as 4 years to commence on 28 March 2003 and to conclude on 27 March 2007, so that the prisoner will become eligible for parole on 27 March 2007. I recommend that a psychiatric assessment of the prisoner be undertaken and, in the event that this confirms the opinions expressed by the forensic psychiatrist and clinical psychologist called on behalf of the prisoner at the sentence hearing, that appropriate psychiatric treatment and psychological counselling be given to the prisoner.

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter - Infant - Father - Killing of 3 month old baby by father - Death as a result of baby being shaken rapidly, strongly and excessively by father, accompanied by a throwing down onto furniture and striking the baby in the abdominal region with his fist - Serious case of manslaughter - Custodial sentence appropriate - Statistics - Use of statistics - Anticedents - Testimonials - Rehabilitation - Familial and presently incurable medical condition likely to shorten lifespan - Special circumstances.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 24(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 21(2), 21A, 22, 23, 24(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002

CASES CITED: Regina v Alexander (1995) 78 A Crim R 141
Regina v Blacklidge NSWCCA 12 December 1995, unreported
Regina v Bilton [2000] NSWSC 923 and 1113
Regina v Ditfort NSWCCA 17 March 1992, unreported
Regina v Dodd (1991-1992) 57 A Crim R 349
Regina v Hill (1980-1981) 3 A Crim R 397
Regina v Howard [2000] NSWSC 876
Regina v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309
Regina v Isaacs (1997) 98 A Crim R 587
Regina v Low (1991-92) 57 A Crim R 8
Regina v Marshall NSWSC, 23 May 2003, unreported
Regina v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim R 82
Regina v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Regina v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28
Regina v Sempel NSWCCA, 31 March 1994, unreported
Regina v Storey (1997) 89 A Crim R 519
Regina v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
Regina v Vangelder NSWCCA, 28 February 1994, unreported
Regina v Vaughan (1991) 56 A Crim R 355
Regina v Whalan NSWCCA, 5 April 1991, unreported
Regina v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416.
Savvas v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 1
Wilson v The Queen (1991-1992) 174 CLR 313.

PARTIES :
Regina
James Stuart Monroe

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70054/02

COUNSEL: Crown - Mr R Herps
Accused - Mr R Hoenig

SOLICITORS: Crown - Ms L Viney (Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW))
Accused - Ms K Robinson (Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales)

- 31 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON…

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 Monroe

Details

AGLC: R v Monroe [2003] NSWSC 1271
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1271
Decision Date: 22 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Monroe involved the appellant, a father, who was charged with the manslaughter of his three-month-old infant. The incident occurred when the father shook the baby excessively and threw it onto furniture, causing fatal injuries. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for this serious act of manslaughter. The legal issues at hand included whether the sentence should reflect the severity of the crime, the impact of the father's personal circumstances on sentencing, and the use of statistics and other evidence in determining the appropriate punishment.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, noting that the death resulted from the father's violent actions towards his infant. It was acknowledged that this was a particularly egregious case of manslaughter, warranting a custodial sentence. The court also took into account the father's personal circumstances, including his familial responsibilities and a presently incurable medical condition that is likely to shorten his lifespan. The use of statistics, antecedents, testimonials, and the potential for rehabilitation were all factors that the court weighed in its decision-making process. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was appropriate, but also recognised the special circumstances surrounding the case.

The court held that, while the manslaughter was serious, the special circumstances of the case warranted a reduced sentence. The father's personal circumstances, including his medical condition and familial responsibilities, were considered mitigating factors. The court also acknowledged the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account the father's expressed remorse and willingness to address his issues. As a result, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the consideration of the father's personal circumstances. The final orders of the court were not detailed in the provided text, but it can be inferred that the sentence was tailored to reflect both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders