R v Scott David Lynn - [2008] NSWSC 1122

CITATION: R v Scott David Lynn [2008] NSWSC 1122

HEARING DATE(S): 21/07/08, 5/09/08, 26/09/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 November 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years, comprising a non-parole period of 4½ years from 18/08/06 to 17/02/11, and a balance of term of 2½ years from 18/02/11 to 17/ 08/13.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - plea of guilty to manslaughter in satisfaction of murder indictment - excessive self-defence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Hamilton [2007] NSWSC 452
R v Trevenna (2004) 149 A Crim R 505
R v Cakovski [2005] NSWSC 1001
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1

PARTIES: Regina (DPP)
Scott David Lynn (offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/3471

COUNSEL: T Bailey (Crown)
G Wendler (offender)

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
AKN & Associates

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Friday 7 November 2008

2008/3471 Regina v Scott David Lynn
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Scott David Lynn, pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Joshua Randle at Parramatta on 14 July 2006. That plea was accepted by the Crown in discharge of an indictment for murder. In April of this year he was tried before Fullerton J for the murder of Mr Randle, but the jury was unable to agree upon a verdict.

Facts

2 An agreed statement of facts recites that on 14 July 2006 the deceased and his fiancée, Toni Kellaway, joined friends at the Woolpack Hotel at Parramatta. They drank together until one of them was refused service, whereupon they moved on to the Hotel Parramatta, where they continued drinking. At 5. 45 pm the deceased and Ms Kellaway left the hotel and walked along Darcy Street towards Hungry Jacks Restaurant on the corner of Church Street Mall.

3 The deceased approached an acquaintance of his, Grant Kelly, who was standing in the mall outside the restaurant. They shook hands in friendly greeting. The deceased looked over Kelly’s shoulder and saw the offender standing immediately behind him. The deceased said to Kelly, “What are you hanging around dickheads for?” Kelly asked, “Are you two arguing?” The deceased rejoined, “Don’t worry, I smashed him once before.” Ms Kellaway, standing next to the deceased, attributes to him the statement, “I will kill you, motherfucker!” She heard the offender say, “Not if I get you first.”

4 The offender reached over Kelly’s shoulder and stabbed the deceased once, very quickly, at the base of the neck above the collarbone. He then ran west through an alleyway adjacent to Berg’s Hobby Store into a rear car park. The deceased staggered after him for a short distance before returning to the front of the hobby store, where he started coughing up blood in the presence of Ms Kellaway and two passers-by. He was laid on the ground, and ambulance officers…

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 David Lynn

Details

AGLC: R v Scott David Lynn [2008] NSWSC 1122
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1122
Decision Date: 7 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Scott David Lynn, the defendant was charged with the murder of his partner. Mr Lynn entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter, asserting that his actions were in response to excessive self-defence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's actions were justified under the doctrine of self-defence and, if so, whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the guilty plea to manslaughter.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plea of guilty to manslaughter could be accepted given the defendant's actions were in response to a perceived threat. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions were proportionate to the threat faced and whether the plea to manslaughter appropriately reflected the circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriate sentence considering the plea and the nature of the offence.

The court acknowledged the defendant's plea of guilty to manslaughter, which was made in recognition of the mitigating factors present, particularly the context of self-defence. The court found that the defendant's actions were a response to a perceived threat, but the level of force used was excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in self-defence claims and concluded that while the defendant's actions were understandable, they exceeded what was necessary. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence, taking into account the guilty plea to manslaughter and the mitigating circumstances.

Orders