R v Newling

[2005] VSC 54

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1412 of 2004

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL EDWIN NEWLING

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4-8, 11-15 October 2004, 14 February 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 March 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Michael Newling
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 54

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Domestic situation – Alcohol – Stabbing once – 7 years’ imprisonment – 5 years’ non-parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Langslow	Kerry R. Clancy

HIS HONOUR:

1. Michael Newling.  You have been found guilty of manslaughter, arising from the killing of Elizabeth Ralston at Shepparton on 12 June 2003.  The jury that found you guilty of manslaughter, found you not guilty of murder. 

1. As at June 2003, you and the deceased had been in a de facto relationship for about 20 months.  The relationship was good for both of you in many ways.  But it had been soured to some extent by the liking of both of you for alcohol.  The deceased was prone at times to indulge in binge drinking. 

1. On the night of 12 June 2003, as at 10 p.m., she had been drinking to excess.  You had also been drinking, although not to nearly the same extent.  Your judgment was nonetheless affected.  Earlier in the night, you had gone out to do your own thing.  That meant that you left her by herself and drinking.  Her resentment at you choosing to prefer the company of others to hers seems to have been fuelled by the alcohol. You returned home around 10 p.m.  The two of you were drinking in the kitchen.  She abused you.  Your response was to pick up a sharp kitchen knife.  You wielded that knife with a stabbing action at Elizabeth Ralston, in a way that was clearly dangerous.  It was not your intention to cause her really serious injury.  Indeed, your action caused only one stab wound.  But it was a penetrating wound to the neck.  Internally, the knife had severed two arteries.  The loss of blood was likely to, and did, lead to the death of the deceased.

1. In this court, you gave quite a detailed account of what you say happened.  In short, you claimed that the stabbing was just an unfortunate accident.  It is clear that crucial parts of your account were not accepted by the jury.  Some parts of your story were scarcely plausible.  You said that the deceased invited you to stab yourself.  You said that you took up the knife only to challenge her to stab you.  You said that she tried to stab you, and that led to you taking the knife from her.  You said that the stabbing must have occurred unbeknown to you in your getting the knife from her.  Your claim that the stabbing was just an accident was the less plausible because the claim was raised late, and because it carried signs of being tailored to other aspects of the evidence against you.  A similar absence of plausibility applies to your claim of having made a prompt telephone call to triple O.

1. I treat this manslaughter as being neither at the most serious nor at the least serious end of the scale.  Your actions in picking up and wielding the knife were not premeditated.  They arose in the course of a short, heated domestic argument fuelled by alcohol.  That scene of a domestic argument leading to violence is regrettably one with which you are familiar.

1. Before turning to your background, I will note that I have carefully read the four victim impact statements lodged with the court.  They come from two sisters, a brother and a niece of Elizabeth Ralston.  They knew and loved her as Lizzie.  The statements would have caused the four pain to prepare, bringing back to each of them memories of Lizzie and what she meant to them.  Her death has caused them stress, depression, disturbed sleep and more.

1. You are now 37 years of age, having been born in November 1967. The details of your family situation and early relationships are set out in the report of Mr Joblin.  Several significant aspects of your history derive from the murder of your very young daughter in 1994.  That led to your suffering a period of psychological disturbance.  In that period, you over-indulged in illegal drugs and alcohol.  Between July 1995 and May 2000, you were convicted at Shepparton on five occasions.  On four of those five occasions, prison sentences were imposed.  Twice you went to prison, once the sentence was suspended, and once an Intensive Corrections Order was imposed.  Significantly, domestic disputes have too often led to your being brought into court.  Accordingly, specific deterrence is a significant consideration.  The same can be said of general deterrence, given that this was an instance of domestic violence involving a vulnerable victim being attacked with a sharp knife.

1. I accept the opinion of Mr Joblin that you are not suffering from any continuing psychological disturbance.  I also accept the opinion of Mr Joblin that you are genuinely remorseful.

1. I have signed orders for retention and disposal, there being good reasons and no objection to my doing so.  I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 7 years.  I fix a non-parole period of 5 years.  I declare the period of pre-sentence detention to be 636 days to today 8 March 2005.  I direct that that be entered in the court records.