R v Nardoni - [1999] NSWSC 1097

CITATION: Regina v Nardoni [1999] NSWSC 1097

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70102/97

HEARING DATE(S): 20 September 1999
5 November 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 November 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Barry Russell Nardoni

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J at 1

COUNSEL : P. Lynch (Crown)
M. Farrer (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
Leo & Morrison (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law And Procedure - Manslaughter - Sentence

DECISION: Sentence Imposed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MICHAEL GROVE J
Friday 12 November 1999
REGINA BARRY RUSSELL NARDONI
SENTENCE
1    HIS HONOUR : Barry Russell Nardoni pleaded guilty before me on indictment for manslaughter of Kylie Anne Neil.
2    The prisoner and the victim lived together in a de facto relationship in a tiny bedsitter flat in what appears to be have been a large complex of such dwellings made available by the Housing Commission in Northcliff Drive Warrawong. As at 25 July 1997 the prisoner was aged twenty six and the victim aged eighteen. They had commenced their association in Victoria but had led a somewhat nomadic existence which it is not necessary now to detail but it appears that they had at least formed an intention to stay for a time in the Wollongong area. They had some discussions with an acquaintance who was in occupation of a two bedroom flat about whether or not an exchange of their accommodation might not be able to be arranged.
3    I am satisfied that the relationship between the parties was substantially affected by the circumstance that neither of them followed any occupation and their time was largely spent imbibing intoxicating liquor and partaking of marijuana. The evidence leads me to suspect that other illicit substances may have been ingested from time to time but I am not satisfied of this to the requisite standard.
4    The violence of the prisoner towards Kylie Neil was evidenced by his appearance at Port Kembla Local Court on 13 May 1997 where he was fined for an offence of malicious injury and, significantly, placed on a recognizance to be of good behaviour for two years and to accept the supervision of the Parole and Probation Service for an assault upon Kylie Neil. That recognizance was current at the time of the killing. It is convenient to note at this point that the prisoner has a prior record including convictions in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. I do not regard his prior record as trivial but many of the offences are of nuisance type and none approach the seriousness of the conviction on the current indictment.
5    On Friday morning 25 July 1997 the prisoner and the victim acquired a slab of beer and a bottle of Cougar brand whiskey and began to drink it. They were joined towards midday by an acquaintance Norman Rausch who was despatched to the supermarket later to obtain a further ten bottles of beer after the original supplies of liquor had been completely consumed. By 5 pm in…

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 Nardoni

Details

AGLC: R v Nardoni [1999] NSWSC 1097
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1097
Decision Date: 12 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Nardoni was heard, where the respondent, Nardoni, was charged with manslaughter following the death of a woman. The case involved a dispute over the appropriate sentence for Nardoni, who was found guilty of manslaughter. The primary legal issue was whether the mitigating factors presented in Nardoni's case warranted a lesser sentence than the maximum penalty for manslaughter.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding Nardoni's character, his remorse, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court noted that Nardoni had shown genuine remorse and had cooperated with the authorities, which were mitigating factors. However, the court also had to consider the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court found that while the mitigating factors were significant, they did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect both the mitigating and aggravating factors.

The Supreme Court of Victoria ruled that Nardoni's sentence should be a term of imprisonment, reflecting the court's consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The specific length of the sentence was determined based on the court's assessment of the overall circumstances. The court emphasised the need to balance the mitigating factors with the necessity to uphold the law and ensure public confidence in the criminal justice system. The final order was that Nardoni be imprisoned for a term determined by the court, taking into account the full range of mitigating and aggravating factors presented.

Orders