R v Stafford - [1996] QCA 79

[1996] QCA 079

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA PINCUS JA AMBROSE J

CA No 503 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

NIGEL ERIN STAFFORD

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 13/03/96
130396 D.1 T17/LE M/T COA42/96
PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a
sentence of nine years imprisonment imposed for the manslaughter
of one Stephen Mutter.

The applicant was indicted for murder but convicted of manslaughter. The primary Judge described the case as one of a savage stabbing of an unarmed victim and said that little could be said in the applicant's favour other than drawing attention to his youth. The Judge's description of the offence is in my view of importance, as His Honour had the advantage of observing the whole trial, which was one of considerable length.

The applicant is a young man, born on 21 January 1976, and he was 18 years of age when the offence was committed in 1994. Mr Cuthbert who led for the applicant suggested that this was an important factor to be taken into account in sentencing and that is a proposition with which I agree. His criminal record includes one offence and Mr Cuthbert said in effect that it was one of no significance and I also agree with that.

At the time of the offence the applicant was residing in a house with an elder brother and sister and the sister's daughter. On the night in question there were many people in the house celebrating the birthday of the sister's boyfriend. The deceased was one of the invitees.

During the evening the applicant and his elder sister quarrelled about the presence of some party guests in the house; saying the party was supposed to be in the back yard. As is pointed out in the applicant's submissions, there were two versions of the 130396 D.1 T17/LE M/T COA42/96

events leading up to the death of the victim.

One Mark Fricker had come into the house to get some beer and went into the kitchen with that in mind. There were, he said, present in the room at that time, the applicant, Stephen Mutter and another person. Fricker said that he heard the applicant say, "Get the fuck out of my house," and then he said that the "other guy", meaning Mutter, stopped, paused for a second, walked round the bench and hit him in the shoulders.

Frickeer said, "Nigel [the applicant] went back into the oven and then came back and hit him [the victim Mutter] in the chest." That "hitting" in the chest was in fact a stabbing. Fricker described the applicant's tone in saying, "Get the fuck out of my house," as being very deep and angry and said that when the applicant was hit he "sort of bounced" off the stove. Fricker also said that after the incident the applicant looked shocked, went to the room of his sister and sat down and started crying and said, "I've killed him."

Another version was given by James…

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 Stafford

Details

AGLC: R v Stafford [1996] QCA 79
Case: [1996] QCA 79
Decision Date: 13/03/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stafford involved the applicant, Nigel Erin Stafford, appealing against a sentence of nine years imprisonment for the manslaughter of Stephen Mutter. The applicant was initially indicted for murder but was convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal, comprising Davies JA, Pincus JA, and Ambrose J, heard the appeal and considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The primary judge had described the manslaughter as a savage stabbing of an unarmed victim, noting that little could be said in the applicant's favour other than his youth. The applicant, born on 21 January 1976, was 18 years old at the time of the offence. His criminal record was minimal, consisting of only one offence, which was deemed insignificant. The court heard two differing accounts of the events leading up to the fatal stabbing, both of which suggested that the applicant initiated the altercation. The Court of Appeal examined several cases with similar circumstances to determine an appropriate sentencing range for manslaughter. They concluded that the sentence imposed was towards the higher end of the range and was not manifestly excessive, particularly considering the applicant's youth and clean criminal record. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders