R v PRFN

Case [2000] NSWCCA 230 21 June 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v PRFN [2000] NSWCCA 230

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60308/99

HEARING DATE(S): 8 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v PRFN

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Grove J at 60; Greg James J at 61

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70012/98

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Newman J

COUNSEL : M C Marien - Crown
P R Zahra - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor, Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown
T A Murphy, Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales - Applicant

CATCHWORDS: CONVICTION APPEAL - self-defence - sexual assault by deceased - profound psychological effect on appellant - belief that would be further sexual assault - appellant's later decision to kill - killing carefully implemented - role of immediacy of threat to accused - no realistic hypothesis that appellant could have believed on reasonable grounds that killing necesary in self-defence. Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88, Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 162 CLR 645 considered - R v Rogers (1996) A Crim R 542 referred to. SENTENCE APPEAL - no error shown.

DECISION: Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA 60308/99

SC 70012/98

GILES JA

GROVE J

GREG JAMES J

Wednesday 21 June 2000

R v PRFN

JUDGMENT

The restrictions on publication or broadcasting in s 11 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 apply.

1    GILES JA: The appellant was charged with the murder on 1 November 1997 of Barry Walter Coulter (“the deceased”). Issues of provocation and diminished responsibility were left to the jury, but the trial judge ruled that the issue of self-defence should not be left to the jury. The appellant was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter, and was sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum term of three years commencing on 16 April 1999 with an additional term of three years thereafter. He appealed in relation to conviction and sought leave to appeal in relation to sentence.
2    The appeal in relation to conviction was on the sole ground that the issue of self-defence should have been left to the jury.
3    The appellant was born on 16 January 1982. His family farmed on properties near Mudgee, and he and his family came to know the deceased when the deceased’s son attended art classes conducted by the appellant’s father in Mudgee. A friendship developed between the appellant and the deceased’s son, and from time to time the appellant would visit the farming property conducted by the deceased. Sometimes the appellant would work at the property, sometimes he would stay overnight, and the deceased assisted him with his school mathematics studies. Quite a close relationship developed between the appellant, the deceased and the deceased’s son, notwithstanding that the deceased was aged in his sixties and the deceased’s son was considerably older than the appellant.
4    In April 1996 the appellant visited the deceased’s property on…

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 PRFN

Details

AGLC: R v PRFN [2000] NSWCCA 230
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 230
Decision Date: 21 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant was involved in a sexual encounter with the deceased, who subsequently died from injuries inflicted by the appellant. The appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that he had killed the deceased in self-defence due to a profound psychological effect from the sexual assault and a belief that the deceased would further assault him. The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's belief that the killing was necessary in self-defence was reasonable, and whether the trial judge had erred in any way in relation to the sentence.

The court considered the principles of self-defence and the requirement that the belief in the necessity to use force must be reasonable. The court found that the appellant's belief that the killing was necessary in self-defence was not reasonable, as there was no realistic hypothesis that a reasonable person in the appellant's position would have believed that killing was necessary to defend himself. The court referred to Viro v The Queen and Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions in determining the applicability of self-defence in this case. The court also noted that the appellant had carefully implemented the killing, which was not consistent with an honest and reasonable belief in self-defence. The court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the case and upheld the conviction and sentence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the appeal against sentence was also dismissed. The court found that the trial judge had correctly considered the principles of self-defence and the evidence before him in reaching the verdict. The appellant's argument that the killing was in self-defence was not accepted by the court, as it was found that the appellant's belief was not reasonable. The court also found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law. The appellant's conviction and sentence were therefore upheld.

Orders