R v Owen - [2021] NSWDC 680

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Owen [2021] NSWDC 680
Hearing dates: 13 December 2021
Date of orders: 13 December 2021
Decision date: 13 December 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraph 96

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – offender stabbed husband with a kitchen knife – significance of mental abnormality – prospects of rehabilitation – hardship to third parties – whether an intensive correction order should be made

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 33
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 4B, 5, 21A, 66

Cases Cited:
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 332
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Quinn v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCCA 294
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Eckersley [2021] NSWSC 562
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Hookey [2018] NSWCCA 147
R v Mitchell (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
Webb & O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65

Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Valerie Owen (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T Kent for the offender
Mr R Kanakaratne (solicitor advocate) for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Mark Mulock & Co Pty Ltd for the offender

File Number(s): 2020/182027
Publication restriction: Nil

ex tempore sentencing remarks

The offender, Mrs Owen, is before the Court for sentencing following a plea to the offence that on 6 April 2020 at Cambridge she wounded her husband, Keith Owen, with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment, and a standard non-parole period of 7 years’ imprisonment.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

The circumstances underlying the offending have been the subject of a signed statement of agreed facts. Much of it was background, or context, for the offending applicable to Mrs Owen’s subjective circumstances, which is relevant to her culpability. They may be summarised as follows.
The victim of the offence is Keith Owen, Mrs Owen’s husband. At the date of her offending she was aged 74. She was born in England and migrated to Australia at the age of 21 years and married Keith soon thereafter, having met him when she was only 15. He was aged 76. Prior to the offending, Mrs Owen and Keith had a happy and loving marriage for 56 years. There had never been any issues of domestic violence. They had two children, a son named Craig, who is now 51 years of age. The other, a daughter, who is deceased. They have two grandsons.
Mrs Owen has a history of issues with her mental health. In about 1995, she tried to commit suicide following the failure of the family’s small business (apparently a delicatessen)…

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 Owen

Details

AGLC: R v Owen [2021] NSWDC 680
Case: [2021] NSWDC 680
Decision Date: 13 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Owen was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Owen, had been convicted of stabbing his husband with a kitchen knife, causing him grievous bodily harm. The appeal was against both conviction and sentence. The primary legal issues were the appropriate sentence for the offence and whether an intensive correction order should be made, considering the offender's mental abnormality and the potential impact on third parties. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with the offender's prospects for rehabilitation and the potential hardship to third parties.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for grievous bodily harm, particularly the need to deter such crimes while also considering individual circumstances. It evaluated the significance of the appellant's mental abnormality, which was found to have significantly impaired his capacity to control his behaviour at the time of the offence. The court also considered the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation, including his willingness to engage in treatment and the likelihood of successful rehabilitation. Furthermore, the potential hardship to third parties, such as the victim and their family, was taken into account.

After thorough deliberation, the court determined that an intensive correction order was appropriate. The order was designed to provide a structured and supportive environment to aid in the appellant's rehabilitation, taking into account his mental health needs and the need for community protection. The court found that the order would balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for the appellant to address his underlying issues and reduce the risk of reoffending. The sentence imposed reflected the gravity of the offence while also considering the appellant's personal circumstances and the broader impact on society.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 96

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Owen [2021] NSWDC 680
Hearing dates:	13 December 2021
Date of orders:	13 December 2021
Decision date:	13 December 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph 96
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – offender stabbed husband with a kitchen knife – significance of mental abnormality – prospects of rehabilitation – hardship to third parties – whether an intensive correction order should be made
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 33 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 4B, 5, 21A, 66
Cases Cited:	Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 332 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Mandranis v R [2021] NSWCCA 97 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Quinn v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCCA 294 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Eckersley [2021] NSWSC 562 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Hookey [2018] NSWCCA 147 R v Mitchell (2007) 177 A Crim R 94 Webb & O’Sullivan [1952] SASR 65
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Valerie Owen (offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr T Kent for the offender Mr R Kanakaratne (solicitor advocate) for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) Mark Mulock & Co Pty Ltd for the offender
File Number(s):	2020/182027
Publication restriction:	Nil