R v Sawyer-Thompson - [2016] VSC 767

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not restricted

AT MORWELL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 00070

Between:

THE QUEEN
-and-
BONNIE KATE SAWYER-THOMPSON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	10 November 2016 (re-arraignment); 17, 21 & 22 November 2016 (plea); 9 February & 10 March 2017 (mentions); 16 March 2017 (further plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 April 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Sawyer-Thompson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 767

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Defensive homicide – Accused, aged 19, killed deceased, aged 23, by striking numerous blows to head, face and neck with mattock and knife – Accused believed, but without reasonable grounds, that, if she did not kill deceased, her boyfriend would kill her family – Accused originally charged with murder and proposing to rely on (complete) defence of duress – Offer to plead guilty to defensive homicide accepted by DPP on second day of trial and on unique basis – Objectively grave example of offence – Accused previously subjected to violence and humiliation by boyfriend – Low intelligence, PTSD, depression, anxiety and dependent personality – Judgment impaired – Admissions – Plea of guilty – Accused provided statement to police implicating boyfriend and undertook to assist in his prosecution but DPP declined to prosecute – Whether such assistance/offer is a mitigating factor – Remorse – Limited criminal history – Youth – Delay – Reasonable/good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of ten years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of seven years – But for plea of guilty, provision of statement and offer and undertaking to assist authorities, sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eleven years – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 9AC-9AH; Parker (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2016] VSCA 101; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA, 11, & 18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Thomson with Ms A. Cannon	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms R. Sleeth	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

On the afternoon of Friday 20 June 2014, while with his girlfriend Bonnie Kate Sawyer-Thompson at her flat in Morwell, Phillip Mifsud tried to kill Jack Brian Nankervis. It is not clear why Mr Mifsud wanted Mr Nankervis dead. Indeed, it seems odd, given that Mr Mifsud had provided his girlfriend’s flat as a hideout for Mr Nankervis after he (Mr Nankervis) had committed an aggravated burglary earlier the same day. Nevertheless, whatever his motive, Mr Mifsud first tried to force Mr Nankervis’s hand into an electric toaster. At this time, Mr Nankervis was in a stupor effected in part by Mr Mifsud’s slipping him the drug “GHB” against his will and in part as a result of his own voluntary drinking and drug-taking. When that failed, Mr Mifsud, who was also drug-affected, tried to shove a coin down Mr Nankervis’s throat. That too was useless.

Once these desultory attempts failed, Mr Mifsud turned sinisterly to his girlfriend and ordered her to kill Mr…

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 Sawyer-Thompson

Details

AGLC: R v Sawyer-Thompson [2016] VSC 767
Case: [2016] VSC 767
Decision Date: 20 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Sawyer-Thompson, was charged with the murder of her boyfriend's former partner. The parties came before the Court of Appeal for a sentencing appeal. The central issue was whether the original sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of eleven years was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant's plea of guilty, the provision of a statement to police implicating the boyfriend, and the offer and undertaking to assist authorities in his prosecution. The appellant argued that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, while the respondent contended that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's history of abuse.

The court held that the appellant's plea of guilty, provision of a statement to police, and offer and undertaking to assist authorities were all significant mitigating factors. The court also found that the appellant's low intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and dependent personality disorder further mitigated the offence. The court held that the appellant's judgment was impaired at the time of the offence, and that she had limited criminal history, was young, and had reasonable/good prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, and reduced the sentence to ten years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.

The court held that the appellant's plea of guilty, provision of a statement to police, and offer and undertaking to assist authorities were all significant mitigating factors. The court held that the appellant's low intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and dependent personality disorder further mitigated the offence. The court held that the appellant's judgment was impaired at the time of the offence, and that she had limited criminal history, was young, and had reasonable/good prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, and reduced the sentence to ten years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years. The court held that the appellant's plea of guilty, provision of a statement to police, and offer and undertaking to assist authorities were all significant mitigating factors. The court held that the appellant's low intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and dependent personality disorder further mitigated the offence. The court held that the appellant's judgment was impaired at the time of the offence, and that she had limited criminal history, was young, and had reasonable/good prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, and reduced the sentence to ten years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years.

Orders