R v Seymour - [2012] NSWSC 1010

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Seymour [2012] NSWSC 1010
Hearing dates: 5 March 2012 - 26 March 2012 29 June 2010 17 August 2012
Decision date: 30 August 2012
Before: Price J
Decision:
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - excessive self defence manslaughter
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
s 21A(2)(ea), s 21A(3)(b), s 21A(3)(c),
s 21A(3)(i)(i)-(ii), s 21A(3)(g)-(h)
Cases Cited: Gore v R; Hunter v R [2010] NSWCCA 330; (2010) 208 A Crim R 353
R v Badanjak [2004] NSWCCA 395
R v Blacklidge (unrep, NSWCCA 12 December 1995)
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Israil [2002] NSWCA 255
R v Macdonald (unrep, NSWCCA 12 December 1995)
R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202.
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
R v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416
Salah, Dror v R [2009] NSWCCA 2
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Representation: Mr Smith (Offender)
Mr Patrick (Crown)
Ms V Hampel (Offender)
Mr J Sfinas (Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2010/392076

Remarks on Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Krystal Jade Seymour has been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of her mother, Donna Marie Seymour on 24 November 2010. The jury acquitted her of the deceased's murder.

The offender stabbed the deceased once with a kitchen knife in the back of the left upper arm, severing the brachial artery which is a major blood vessel. The deceased died from blood loss due to the stab wound. The deceased was 48 years old at the time of her death.

The maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years.

It is my duty to determine the facts relevant to sentencing the offender. My view of the facts must be consistent with the verdict of the jury and the findings of fact I make against the offender must be arrived at beyond reasonable doubt: R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374. Matters of mitigation may be proved on the balance of probabilities: R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202.

Although the jury was directed that a verdict of manslaughter was available if the Crown was unable to exclude the reasonable possibility that the offender killed the deceased under provocation, or that a verdict of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act was open in the event that the Crown had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the offender had an intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm, I am satisfied that the verdict of manslaughter was returned because the Crown was unable to exclude the reasonable possibility that the offender personally believed her conduct was necessary to defend herself. However, the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the stabbing of the deceased was not a reasonable response to the circumstances as the offender perceived them to be. Accordingly, the offender is to be sentenced upon the…

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 Seymour

Details

AGLC: R v Seymour [2012] NSWSC 1010
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1010
Decision Date: 30 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Criminal Case against Thomas Seymour, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentence imposed upon the defendant for the manslaughter of a man during a self-defence incident. The defendant claimed he acted in self-defence, asserting that the deceased had threatened him with a knife. However, the court found that the defendant's actions were excessive, resulting in the death of the deceased. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of excessive self-defence in sentencing the defendant.

The court examined the principles of excessive self-defence and the circumstances of the incident, assessing whether the defendant's response was proportionate to the threat he faced. It was established that self-defence is a lawful response to an unlawful attack, but it must be proportionate to the danger faced. The court held that the trial judge had erred in failing to properly consider the proportionality of the defendant's actions and the mitigating factors present in the case. The court found that the sentence imposed was excessive and did not adequately reflect the principles of proportionality and mitigation.

In light of the errors identified, the High Court quashed the sentence and ordered a resentencing hearing. The court emphasised the need for trial judges to carefully consider the principles of proportionality and mitigation when sentencing in cases involving excessive self-defence. The court directed that the resentencing hearing should take into account all relevant mitigating factors and ensure that the sentence imposed is proportionate to the crime committed and the circumstances of the case. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying legal principles in sentencing and the role of appellate courts in ensuring that justice is served.

Orders