Criminal Law And Procedure - Sentence - Indictment For Murder - Offer To Plead Guilty To Manslaughter Rejected By Crown - Conviction By Manslaughter By Jury - Considerations Arising Out Of Offer To Plead Guilty To Crime Of Which Ultimately Convicted
DECISION:
Appeal Allowed. Appellant Resentenced.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60571/98
SPIGELMAN CJ GROVE J
SULLY J
Wednesday 29 September 1999
REGINA v LAURI LEEVI OINONEN
JUDGMENT
1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence following the conviction of the appellant for manslaughter at the Dubbo Supreme Court.
2 The appellant was there indicted before Dunford J and a jury for murder. The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. His Honour sentenced the appellant to a total of eleven years penal servitude, divided into minimum and additional term components of eight years and three years respectively. That division followed a finding by his Honour that there were special circumstances justifying the extension of the additional term beyond the proportion that would have resulted from the application of the formula in s.5(2) of the Sentencing Act.
3 The circumstances do not require lengthy elaboration.
4 The applicant was a resident of Lightning Ridge and engaged in opal mining. He became concerned that a young man might have stolen some opal from him. The young man was in fact the grandson of a woman with whom the appellant was involved in a de facto relationship. However, having acquired the suspicion about the opal the appellant took a .22 rifle, loaded it, and did not engage the safety catch. He was well affected by the prior ingestion of intoxicating liquor, including methylated spirits.
5 He drove into town to the house where the young man was staying. He sought to remonstrate with him about the alleged theft. That theft was denied.
6 The victim attempted to depart from the scene but his way was blocked by the appellant. Eventually he sought to escape by running down the street. As he did so the appellant raised the rifle to his shoulder and fired it in his direction. It struck him fatally.
7 The finding of the jury obviously meant that they were not satisfied that the appellant intended death or grievous bodily harm. Nevertheless, it must be said that to present a lethal weapon without its safety device engaged is of itself a dangerous act of a very high order.
8 Substantially two matters have been canvassed in the course of this appeal. As I am of…
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 Oinonen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Oinonen [1999] NSWCCA 310
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 310
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendants were convicted by a jury of manslaughter. The Crown had previously rejected their offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter. In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the defendants challenged their sentences on the basis that the Crown's rejection of their plea offer should have been taken into account. The defendants argued that the Crown's rejection of their plea offer should have resulted in a lesser sentence, as it indicated that the Crown did not consider the defendants to be as culpable as the jury ultimately found them to be. The Crown argued that the plea offer was irrelevant to the sentence, as the defendants had been convicted by a jury and the sentence should be based on the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the defendants as found by the jury.
The court considered whether the Crown's rejection of the plea offer should have been taken into account when sentencing the defendants. The court noted that the Crown's rejection of a plea offer could be relevant to sentencing, but only in certain circumstances. The court held that the Crown's rejection of the plea offer was not a sufficient reason to reduce the sentence, as the defendants had been convicted by a jury and the sentence should be based on the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the defendants as found by the jury. The court held that the plea offer was only relevant to the extent that it reflected the defendants' culpability, but that the jury's verdict was the final determination of the defendants' culpability.
The court held that the Crown's rejection of the plea offer was not a sufficient reason to reduce the sentence. The court held that the sentence should be based on the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the defendants as found by the jury. The court held that the plea offer was only relevant to the extent that it reflected the defendants' culpability, but that the jury's verdict was the final determination of the defendants' culpability. The court held that the Crown's rejection of the plea offer did not indicate that the defendants were less culpable than the jury found them to be, and therefore did not warrant a reduction in sentence.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentences imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the sentences were appropriate in all the circumstances, and that the Crown's rejection of the plea offer did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The court held that the defendants' culpability was properly determined by the jury, and that the sentence should be based on the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the defendants as found by the jury.