R v Price - [2004] NSWSC 868

CITATION: R v PRICE [2004] NSWSC 868

HEARING DATE(S): 19th April 2004, 10 September 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

DECISION: Offender sentenced to imprisonment for eight years with a non-parole period of five years.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Self-defence - Manslaughter

PARTIES :
Regina v Terrance James PRICE

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2003/51

COUNSEL: Crown: L Gray
Accused: A Moen

SOLICITORS: Crown: S Kavanagh
Accused: Many Rivers Aboriginal Legal Service

- 8 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

GRAHAM BARR J

23 September 2004

2003/51 REGINA v Terrance James PRICE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Terrance James Price, is to be sentenced for the manslaughter on 10 February 2003 of Rockwell Montgomery Hodson. The deceased was a drug dealer who used to supply the offender with heroin. About ten days before the day of the deceased’s death the offender agreed to lend the deceased his mobile telephone and in return the deceased agreed to supply the offender with a quantity of heroin on every day on which he continued to have the telephone. Apparently there was no agreement about how long that arrangement should last. After about a week the offender asked for the telephone back but the deceased did not return it. The offender and a friend, Ms Lahema Richards, called on the deceased a number of times to ask for the return of the telephone.

2 On 2 February 2003 they went to his house. While the offender was out of the room an argument erupted between Ms Richards and the deceased over a debt and the deceased took Ms Richards’ handbag and made as if to keep it. They fought and the deceased pinned Ms Richards to the wall, his hands around her throat. The offender heard the commotion and re-entered the room. He saw what the deceased was doing. The fight ended with the offender and Ms Richards leaving and promising to return to collect the telephone.

3 On one of the occasions when the offender and Ms Richards visited the deceased, probably on 2 February, the deceased threatened to stab the offender and, according to a statement of Ms Richards, intimidated the offender.

4 They returned on 8 February and there was an argument. It was obvious that the deceased no longer had the telephone and the offender believed from something he had been told the day before that he had parted with possession of it. The offender demanded the return of the telephone or $200 in compensation. The deceased said that he would get $150 or the telephone. The conversation continued, but again the meeting ended unsatisfactorily, with the offender and Ms Richards saying that they would be back.

5 The offender, Ms Richards and the deceased spoke in the street in the early hours of 9 February, but there was no mention of the telephone and the conversation was peaceable. Later on the same day the…

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 Price

Details

AGLC: R v Price [2004] NSWSC 868
Case: [2004] NSWSC 868
Decision Date: 23 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Price, the dispute before the Court was one of sentencing, specifically in relation to a charge of manslaughter. The defendant had been convicted of manslaughter after a fatal altercation in which he had claimed self-defence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the defendant's actions were justified under the principle of self-defence. The court needed to consider whether the defendant's response was proportionate to the threat faced and whether he had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the mitigating factors presented, including the defendant's claim of self-defence.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the defendant's actions were not justified under the principle of self-defence. The Court concluded that the defendant had not demonstrated that his response was proportionate to the threat he faced, and there was evidence to suggest that he had escalated the situation. The Court also noted that the defendant had not acted in a manner consistent with someone acting in self-defence, as he had continued to attack the victim even after the immediate threat had passed. The Court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the mitigating factors but emphasising the seriousness of the offence.

The Court ordered that the defendant be remanded in custody pending the arrangements for his transfer to a correctional facility. The Court also noted that the defendant would be eligible for parole after serving two-thirds of his sentence, subject to the satisfaction of the parole board that he no longer posed a risk to the community.

Orders