R v RG - [2006] NSWSC 21

CITATION: R v RG [2006] NSWSC 21

HEARING DATE(S): 23/01/2006, 24/01/2006, 25/01/2006, 31/01/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period commencing on 31 October 2004 and expiring on 2 February 2006 with a total term commencing on 31 October 2004 and expiring on 30 October 2007.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - manslaughter - substantial impairment - offender suffered from a psychotic disorder - "defence" of "mental illness" available but not relied upon

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Azzopardi [2004] VSC 509
R v Blacklidge (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Cameron (2002) 187 CLR 65
R v Cooper [2001] NSWSC 769
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Durocher-Yvon (2003) 58 NSWLR 581
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Grierson (CCA(NSW), unrep, 28 October 1996)
R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Hoerler (2004) 147 A Crim R 520
R v Li [2000] NSWSC 1088
R v McDonald (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Pope [2002] NSWSC 397
R v Richards [2002] NSWSC 415
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Sette [2000] NSWSC 648
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Troja (CCA, 16 July 1991, unreported)
R v Wright (1997 93 A Crim R 48

PARTIES: Regina
RG (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1007

COUNSEL: L Gray (Crown)
M Austin (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
Walker Smith (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2006

R v RG
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, whom I shall refer to as RG, appears for sentence in respect of the manslaughter of her daughter, whom I shall refer to as RM. It is necessary to use pseudonyms for various persons in order to protect the identity of the deceased who was a seven month-old baby at the time of her death. The offender is now aged 45.

2 The offender was originally charged with the murder of RM on 31 October 2004 at Wingham. She has been in continuous custody since that date, a period of slightly more than fifteen months. Before the jury was empanelled Mr Austin, who appears on behalf of the offender, took objection to part of a conversation which the offender had with police. Following my decision to overrule the objection and to admit the evidence in question, the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter, a plea which was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment. The plea was accepted upon the basis that RG was suffering at the relevant time from a “substantial impairment” within the meaning of s 23A of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 25 years.

3 A comprehensive statement of facts was tendered…

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 RG

Details

AGLC: R v RG [2006] NSWSC 21
Case: [2006] NSWSC 21
Decision Date: 2 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, RG, who was charged with the offence of manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. RG was convicted of manslaughter by the magistrates' court and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the severity of the sentence imposed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in considering the substantial impairment caused by RG's psychotic disorder as an aggravating factor in sentencing. RG's legal team argued that the substantial impairment should not have been considered an aggravating factor, as it was a consequence of the same disorder that could have been a mitigating factor. They further argued that the sentencing judge had failed to appropriately weigh the mitigating factors, resulting in an excessively harsh sentence.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, held that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the substantial impairment as an aggravating factor. The court found that the substantial impairment was a direct consequence of RG's voluntary act of taking a large amount of drugs, which led to the death of the victim. The court also determined that the sentencing judge had given appropriate weight to the mitigating factors, including RG's psychiatric history and the impact of the disorder on his capacity to exercise self-control. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders