R v SMP - [1999] NSWCCA 318

CITATION: R v SMP [1999] NSWCCA 318

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60015 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 11/10/1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 October 1999

PARTIES :

SMP (applicant)
Regina (respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Hidden J at 1; Greg James J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70095/97

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Barr J

COUNSEL: P J D Hamill (applicant)
C K Maxwell QC (respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - manslaughter - juvenile - use of knife - low level of culpability

ACTS CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1986

CASES CITED:
R v Troja (CCA unreported 16 July 1991)
Azar (1991) 56 ACrim R 414
Taouk (CCA unreported 20 March 1992)
Sofokleous (CCA unreported 13 December 1993)
MacDonald (CCA unreported 12 December 1995) Bollen (CCA unreported 9 September 1997)
R v Karhani (CCA unreported 14 October 1998)

DECISION: Appeal allowed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60015 of 1999

SULLY J
HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J
Friday 15 October 1999

Regina v SMP

Reasons for judgment
1     THE COURT: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by Barr J for manslaughter. He had embarked upon a trial for murder, but on the second day of the trial the Crown accepted his plea of guilty to manslaughter in full discharge of the indictment. In passing sentence, his Honour took into account a related offence of obtaining a sum of money by deception. The applicant was sentenced to penal servitude for seven years, comprising a minimum term of four years and an additional term of three years, and his Honour directed that the sentence be served in a detention centre until he turned twenty-one. The sentence was to date from 14 May 1997, the day the applicant was taken into custody.

Facts

2     In the early hours of 30 April 1997 the applicant went to the house of a friend, Justin Wong, intending to buy marijuana. The deceased, another young man whom he did not know, was also at the house. There was some unpleasantness of no particular consequence between the applicant and Mr Wong, on the one hand, and the deceased, on the other. The deceased left the home, as did the applicant some time later.
3     His Honour’s findings about what then occurred are these. The applicant walked towards his car, which was parked in a nearby street. It was quite dark. The deceased was hiding behind a tree, armed with a knife. He grabbed the applicant and threw him to the ground. The applicant also had a knife, which was a small, folding knife. It fell out of his pocket, and he picked it up and opened it. As the deceased came towards him, he stabbed him in the neck and the head. The stab wound to the neck penetrated his upper spinal cord, causing his death.
4     By his plea of guilty to manslaughter, the applicant admitted killing the deceased…

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 SMP

Details

AGLC: R v SMP [1999] NSWCCA 318
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 318
Decision Date: 15 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SMP involved a juvenile offender who was charged with manslaughter following an incident in which a knife was used. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the circumstances of the offence and the offender's level of culpability. The case raised issues regarding the sentencing principles applicable to juvenile offenders, and the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation in such cases.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the juvenile offender, who had been found guilty of manslaughter. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing juvenile offenders, which emphasise rehabilitation and the potential for reform, while also ensuring that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence and serves as a deterrent. Additionally, the court had to assess the offender's level of culpability, and whether any mitigating factors should be taken into account in determining the sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the case, including the offender's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation. The court recognised that while the offence was serious, the offender's level of culpability was relatively low, and that the offender had shown remorse and had taken steps towards rehabilitation. The court also noted that the offender had no prior criminal history and that the use of the knife was not premeditated. Taking all these factors into account, the court determined that a sentence that balanced punishment and rehabilitation was appropriate. The court imposed a sentence that included a combination of imprisonment and community service, with a focus on rehabilitation and support for the offender.

The final orders of the court included a sentence that reflected the principles of juvenile justice, with an emphasis on rehabilitation and support for the offender. The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a period of imprisonment, followed by a period of community service and participation in a rehabilitation program. The court also ordered that the offender be subject to supervision and support during the rehabilitation period, to ensure that the offender remained on a path towards reform and reintegration into society.

Orders