R v Robson - [1999] NSWSC 855

CITATION: R v ROBSON [1999] NSWSC 855

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70054/98

HEARING DATE(S): 2 July 1999, 20 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Brian John ROBSON

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: T R Hoyle SC
Prisoner: A Webb

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Prisoner: S Calomeris

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.

DECISION: See paragraph 43.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Thursday, 26 August 1999
70054/98 - REGINA v Brian John ROBSON
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: On 2 July 1999 the prisoner, Brian John Robson, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter in October 1997 of Ronald Charles Brotherton. He had been charged with murder and the Crown accepted his plea in discharge of the indictment.
2   During 1997 the prisoner, his wife and their children lived in a house in Moruya. The deceased was out of a job and addicted to alcohol and illegal drugs. He prevailed upon the prisoner and his wife, Mrs Thirza Robson, to let him live at their house. During the few months that he lived there, the deceased used heroin, and that fact became known to the principal of the school attended by the children and to other local authorities. The question was officially raised whether the children were being properly looked after. At this, the prisoner and Mrs Robson required the deceased to leave the house, and he did so.
3   The prisoner and Mrs Robson were not well off. She was the owner of a car which, though it was not of great value, was important to the family. The prisoner had worked on it from time to time. Not long after he left the household, the deceased returned to the house without permission, stole the keys to the car, took the car and drove it until it left the road and sustained substantial damage. He appears to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time. On the following morning he went to the prisoner and Mrs Robson and told them what he had done. The prisoner told him to leave. Some time later, the deceased visited them again and said that he would pay for the damage. They did not take him seriously because over the months that he had lived with them he had never paid board or repaid their generous hospitality in any way, notwithstanding promises to do so.
4   The prisoner told Mrs Robson that someone should teach the deceased a lesson.
5   The deceased, who had a history of committing criminal offences, went to live with a couple called Martin Strahan and Leanne Holmes. Whilst he lived there, he involved himself in theft and they in turn asked him to leave. By the time of the events that followed, the deceased was living in a house owned or occupied by a man called Terry Shipley in a rural district about ten kilometres…

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 Robson

Details

AGLC: R v Robson [1999] NSWSC 855
Case: [1999] NSWSC 855
Decision Date: 26 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Robson, the respondent, Robson, was charged with manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent was found guilty of manslaughter after he caused the death of the victim, a pedestrian, by dangerous driving. The respondent drove his car in a manner that was dangerous to the public and subsequently hit and killed the victim. The respondent appealed his sentence, arguing that it was excessive and should be reduced.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances and whether it should be altered. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, as well as the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. The court was also required to consider the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community.

The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and should not be altered. The court found that the respondent's actions were reckless and demonstrated a clear disregard for the safety of others. The court noted that the respondent had no previous convictions and had shown remorse for his actions. However, the court found that the severity of the crime warranted a significant sentence to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also noted the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community, and found that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offence. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence.

Orders