R v Sandness - [2000] NSWSC 821

CITATION: R v Sandness [2000] NSWSC 821

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70055/99

HEARING DATE(S): 5 & 6 June, 14 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Tony Sandness

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : Mr B Newport QC (Crown)
Mr G Cusack QC (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Hovan & Co, Solicitors (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - manslaughter

DECISION: See para 25.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DUNFORD J
Friday, 18 AUGUST 2000
70055/99 R v Tony SANDNESS
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner Tony Sandness pleaded not guilty to the murder of Donald Foster but on the second day of the trial he changed that plea to one of guilty of manslaughter, which the Crown accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment. 2 On 30 December 1997 at about 3 pm the deceased then 80 years old, weak and with a number of health problems, was in bed at his home at 16 Vera St, Earlwood when he was bludgeoned with a half brick resulting in severe head injuries from which he bled profusely. He was taken to hospital but died there on 9 January 1998, some 10 days later, as a result of his injuries. 3 The prisoner gave evidence on the sentencing proceedings and said that he had been addicted to heroin and amphetamines for some years and whilst a patient at Wisteria House, a drug rehabilitation unit, he had formed a relationship with Sue-Ann Foster, the grand-daughter of the deceased and another addict. He said that on 30 December the two of them went to the deceased's home to get money, believing that at that time of the day he would not be at home. He said they wanted $40 to buy a ball joint for Ms Foster's car, but I am satisfied to the criminal standard that they also wanted money to purchase drugs. Ms Foster had been to the grandfather's place before asking for money when he was there and he had refused her, so on this occasion they decided to go when he was not there and steal it. 4 The prisoner said that after parking their car (which was a stolen car) in a parking area nearby at the end of the street, they entered the premises by him bending a padlock lever on a side gate and Ms Foster then using her keys to gain entry through the back door, although other evidence indicated that the door must have been unlocked at the time. He said Ms Foster went in whilst he remained at the back door, he heard mumbled talk and a scuffle and then Ms Foster called him, so we went into the premises and found the deceased in his bedroom holding Ms Foster who was struggling. The prisoner hit the deceased in the mouth with his closed fist causing him to let go of her and grab him by the shirt.…

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 Sandness

Details

AGLC: R v Sandness [2000] NSWSC 821
Case: [2000] NSWSC 821
Decision Date: 18 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were the prosecution and the accused, Sandness. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon Sandness for his conviction of manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues that the court needed to determine included the principles governing the sentencing of a manslaughter conviction and the specific factors that should be considered in this case to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

The court considered various legal principles and precedents in determining the appropriate sentence. It examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the degree of moral culpability, and the individual characteristics of the offender. The court also took into account the principles of proportionality and deterrence in fashioning a sentence that would serve the interests of justice. In Sandness's case, the court found that his actions, while not premeditated, demonstrated a significant degree of recklessness and a lack of regard for the safety of others. The court further found that Sandness had shown remorse and had cooperated with the investigation and prosecution.

Following its analysis, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Sandness was imprisonment. The court imposed a sentence of eight years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. The court reasoned that this sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the individual circumstances of the case and the principles of sentencing. The court further emphasised the importance of deterrence in its sentencing decision, aiming to send a message that such reckless behaviour would not be tolerated.

Orders