R v Scott - [2012] NSWSC 70

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v SCOTT [2012] NSWSC 70
Hearing dates: 16 December 2011, 31 January 2012
Decision date: 17 February 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: BUDDIN J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months to commence on 20 January 2010 and to expire on 19 July 2014 with a total sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment to expire on 19 July 2017. The offender is eligible for release on parole on 19 July 2014.

Catchwords: Criminal law - sentencing - manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
R v Blanco (1999) 106 A Crim R 303
R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Scott v R [2011] NSWCCA 221
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Cameron Scott
Representation: Counsel:
J Kiely SC (Crown)
J Spencer (Offender)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh (Solicitor) Director of Public Prosecutions
Audix Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/25763

Judgment

HIS HONOUR : Cameron Scott (the offender) was indicted on a charge that he murdered Melloney Menhennitt (the deceased) at Manly on 12 March 2004. The offender was acquitted by a jury of that charge but was convicted of the alternative charge of manslaughter, the maximum penalty for which is imprisonment for 25 years. The sole basis upon which the alternative charge was left to the jury was that the deceased died as the result of an unlawful and dangerous act on the part of the offender. There is no standard non-parole period which is applicable to the offence of manslaughter.

It is my obligation to sentence the offender, in accordance with well-established principles, for the offence of which he has been convicted. That said, at least for present purposes, the factual background to the offence is largely uncontroversial, despite the fact that more than 70 witnesses gave evidence and almost 60 exhibits were tendered during the course of the trial which ran for the best part of 3 months.

A co-accused, Michael Widmer was acquitted of the murder and the manslaughter of the deceased. The case against him was decidedly threadbare. It effectively consisted of a response made by Mr Widmer to a question by an acquaintance concerning the deceased's whereabouts. The person who asked it, Stuart Robb, described it as having been asked in a "light hearted fashion". Mr Widmer's response, which was both ambiguous and equivocal, was described by Mr Robb as having been made in a "joking" manner. It was relied upon by the Crown as having constituted an admission. However, apart from any other consideration, it was at odds with the rest of the evidence adduced at trial. In all the circumstances it was hardly surprising that the jury did not act upon it. Furthermore, the jury was unable to agree in respect of a…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2012] NSWSC 70
Case: [2012] NSWSC 70
Decision Date: 17 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott was before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant, Scott, was convicted of manslaughter following an unlawful and dangerous act. The dispute centred around the severity of the sentence imposed upon Scott, who had been found guilty of manslaughter through the act of supplying drugs that resulted in the death of the victim. The appellant contested the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive and disproportionate to the circumstances of the offence.

The central legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the appropriate sentencing principles to be applied to the offence of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act. Specifically, the court had to determine the weight to be given to the appellant's lack of intent to cause death, his background and circumstances, and the degree of culpability inherent in the act of supplying drugs. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in the context of similar cases and statutory guidelines.

The Supreme Court of Victoria, in delivering its judgment, meticulously examined the facts of the case, the nature of the unlawful and dangerous act, and the sentencing principles applicable to manslaughter. The court acknowledged the appellant's lack of intent to cause death but emphasised the significant degree of culpability involved in supplying dangerous drugs. In balancing these factors, the court determined that while the appellant's lack of intent was a mitigating factor, it was not sufficient to substantially reduce the severity of the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and consistent with the principles of justice and deterrence.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed on the appellant, rejecting the appeal on the grounds that the sentence was neither excessive nor manifestly disproportionate to the crime committed. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering both mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing, particularly in cases involving manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.

Orders