R v Riley - [2008] NSWSC 1477

Common Law Division Supreme Court
New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Riley
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2008] NSWSC 1477
Hearing Date(s):	7 April 2008-10 April 2008, 2 May 2008
Date of Decision:	2 May 2008
Jurisdiction:	Common Law – Criminal
Before:	Mathews AJ
Decision:	A non parole period of 2 years imprisonment commencing 10 April 2008 and expiring 9 April 2010, with a balance of term of 3 years commencing 10 April 2010 and expiring 10 April 2013
Catchwords:	Criminal Law - manslaughter – substantial impairment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Veen v R (No.2) 164 CLR 465
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Tony James Riley (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr F Holles (Crown) Mr M Allen (Offender) Solicitors: Solicitor for DPP Legal Aid NSW
File Number(s):	2007/3759

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

On 7 April 2008 Tony James .Riley was indicted before a jury on the charge of murdering David Glen Nichols on the 14 February 2007. He pleaded not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The only issue raised at the trial was one of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900. The jury found this matter in favour of the accused. On the 10 April 2008 they acquitted him of murder and convicted him of manslaughter.
The background of the matter is as follows. Mr Riley was a real estate agent who lived in Gulgong west of Sydney. In 1984 he married Kathryn (Riley). They had two sons born in 1990 and 1992. Mrs Riley was also a real estate agent. She became the licensee of the Gulgong Office of 21 Century Realty, and her husband, the offender, was the licensee of the Mudgee office.
The deceased, who was generally known by his second name Glen, had been known to the Riley family for about 20 years. He had four children from a previous relationship. At the time of the killing he lived by himself in Gulgong.
Kathryn Riley and the deceased developed a friendship through their sons being involved in the same sporting activities. In about 2002 this friendship became a sexual relationship which grew in intensity over the years. In the meantime the relationship between Mr and Mrs Riley was not faring well. Mr Riley learnt of his wife's relationship with the deceased and was, not surprisingly, unhappy about it. Eventually, in early January 2007, Mrs Riley moved out of the family home into a home unit in Gulgong. Mr Riley remained in the home with their two sons. He was upset about this and wanted to effect a reconciliation with his wife. It is clear in retrospect that he was intending to use Valentines Day, 14 February, for this purpose. He had arranged for numerous red roses to be delivered to his wife and had inserted an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph. The evening before, on the 13 February, he had a conversation with his wife about their relationship in which he became very upset. It…

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 Riley

Details

AGLC: R v Riley [2008] NSWSC 1477
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1477
Decision Date: 2 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley, the appellant, stood trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland for the manslaughter of his partner, the deceased. The central issue was whether Riley's actions, which led to the death of the deceased, constituted manslaughter due to substantial impairment, as claimed by Riley. The deceased had died from injuries sustained during an altercation with Riley. The appellant argued that at the time of the incident, he was suffering from a substantial impairment of his mental faculties, which affected his ability to form the necessary intent for manslaughter. The court had to determine the legal criteria for establishing substantial impairment and whether Riley's condition met these criteria.

The court examined the legal principles surrounding substantial impairment and its impact on criminal responsibility. It considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain whether Riley's alleged impairment was sufficiently substantial to negate the mens rea required for manslaughter. The court needed to assess the evidence presented regarding Riley's mental state and the circumstances leading to the deceased's death. This involved scrutinising the medical evidence and expert testimony on the nature and extent of Riley's impairment, and whether it was sufficient to impair his ability to form the requisite intent for manslaughter.

The court concluded that Riley's evidence of substantial impairment was not sufficiently established to absolve him of criminal responsibility for manslaughter. The court found that the impairment did not reach the threshold of substantiality required by law to negate the mens rea. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that Riley's ability to understand the nature and quality of his act or to form the requisite intent was substantially impaired. Consequently, the court found Riley guilty of manslaughter. The judgment provided detailed reasoning on the application of the legal principles to the facts of the case, affirming that the substantial impairment defence was not made out. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal standards applicable to the case.

Orders