R v Simpson - [1999] NSWSC 842

CITATION: R v Simpson [1999] NSWSC 842

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division

FILE NUMBER(S): 70077/98

HEARING DATE(S): 5/7/99, 9/7/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Anthony Lloyd Simpson

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

COUNSEL : P.J. Barnett (Crown)
P.D. Rosser (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: C.M. Olsen (Crown)
J.M. Anthony (Prisoner)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law; sentencing; manslaughter; deceased electrocuted as consequence of criminal negligence of prisoner; special circumstances; sentence of nine years penal servitude with minimum term of six years

ACTS CITED: Criminal Procedure Act
Crimes Act

CASES CITED: Nydam v The Queen (1977) VR 430 at 445
Wilson v The Queen (1991-92) 174 CLR 313
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v McDonald (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1995)
R v Previtera (1998) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Troja (unreported, NSWCCA, 16 July 1991)
R v Maguire (unreported, NSWCCA, 30 August 1995)

DECISION: See para 46

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

STUDDERT J
Friday 20 August 1999

070077/98 REGINA v ANTHONY LLOYD SIMPSON
SENTENCE
1   HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Anthony Lloyd Simpson, is convicted of the manslaughter of Michael John Priest. The prisoner pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter upon arraignment before Mr Justice Barr on 25 May 1999. The Crown accepted the plea in full satisfaction of the charge in the indictment and the prisoner was remanded for sentence in Newcastle on 5 July 1999. Because a trial was to commence on that date, I further remanded the prisoner until 9 July when he adhered to the plea previously entered. I heard evidence and submissions on 9 July and then remanded the prisoner in custody for sentence.
2   The death as a consequence of which the subject charge arose occurred on 12 March 1998 in the backyard of premises at Tarean Road, Karuah. Those premises comprise a dwelling house, and before he separated from his wife some months prior to 12 March 1998 the prisoner lived there with his wife and children. Indeed, even following the separation, it seems that the prisoner remained on good terms with his wife and used to visit her frequently at the former matrimonial home. As a matter of daily routine, he used to go there to see the children off to school. However, following the separation the prisoner lived with his mother whose home was a short distance away at Franklin Street, Karuah.
3   The prisoner had growing in the back garden of the former matrimonial home some marijuana plants. In order to protect these plants from being stolen or damaged by animals, the prisoner put up chicken wire fencing and he also put in place electrified wiring which calls for a detailed description.
4   The plants were growing in a bed near the back fence. That fence was of corrugated iron construction and there was a timber cap along the top of the iron. Behind that fence was vacant land, and immediately behind that fence was a further fence comprising four strands…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Simpson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] NSWSC 842
Decision Date: 20 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the defendant, Simpson, was charged with manslaughter arising from the electrocution of a deceased individual due to the criminal negligence of a prisoner. The case was heard and determined in a court of criminal jurisdiction in Australia. The prosecution argued that Simpson's actions, or lack thereof, while serving as a prison officer, led to the tragic death of the deceased. Simpson contended that he was not criminally negligent in his duties and that any potential negligence was not of such a degree to warrant a conviction of manslaughter.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Simpson's conduct constituted criminal negligence, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the incident, the role of Simpson in the events leading to the electrocution, and the degree of negligence, if any, that Simpson exhibited. The court also considered the special circumstances of the case, including the unique environment of a correctional facility and the potential impact of systemic issues within the prison system.

In its reasoning, the court found that Simpson's actions did indeed amount to criminal negligence, as he failed to adhere to necessary safety protocols that would have prevented the electrocution. The court emphasised the gravity of Simpson's negligence, considering the vulnerable position of the deceased as a prisoner. After assessing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that a sentence of nine years of penal servitude with a minimum term of six years was appropriate, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court made it clear that this sentence was intended to serve as a strong message about the importance of duty and care within the prison system.

Orders