Legal Research
Cases
R v Stanley (No. 2)

R v Stanley (No. 2)

Case [2023] NSWSC 74 10 February 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stanley (No. 2) [2023] NSWSC 74
Hearing dates: 24 November 2022
Date of orders: 10 February 2023
Decision date: 10 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
For the offence of manslaughter I impose a sentence of imprisonment of 6 years commencing 3 January 2021 and expiring on 2 January 2027, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months commencing 3 January 2021 and expiring on 2 July 2024.
The offender will become eligible to be released on parole on 2 July 2024.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – remarks on sentence – manslaughter – excessive self defence – where deceased attended home of offender with others – where offender was “called out” to fight – where offender ran out of house wielding a kitchen knife – early plea of guilty to manslaughter – vulnerable in custody – Bugmy considerations – true remorse – good prospects of rehabilitation – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Fuller v R [2022] NSWCCA 203
JM v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 55; [2012] NSWCCA 83
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Tsingolas [2022] NSWDC 34
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Shelby Stanley (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Queenan (Crown)
S Hall SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Karim & Nicol Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/00028314
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

On 15 August 2022, the offender, Shelby Stanley, was arraigned before a jury on an indictment that charged him with murdering Bradley Stanley on 3 January 2021. The offender entered a plea of not guilty to murder, but guilty of manslaughter on the basis of self-defence. That jury had to be discharged and Mr Stanley maintained the same position when he was arraigned before a fresh jury on 18 August 2022. Evidence was called by the Crown over the next two weeks until the Crown case closed on 29 August 2022. At this time the plea that was initially rejected by the Crown was accepted and the jury was discharged.
The effect of all of this is that the factual basis upon which the plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted by the Crown was that Mr Stanley had believed that his conduct was necessary to defend himself, but his conduct was not reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. This is referred to excessive as self-defence.
The offender now stands to be sentenced for that offence.
Agreed Facts signed by the offender…

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 Stanley (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Stanley (No. 2) [2023] NSWSC 74
Case: [2023] NSWSC 74
Decision Date: 10 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a plea of guilty to manslaughter following the death of an individual during a confrontation at the offender's home. The offender, Stanley, had run out of his house wielding a kitchen knife, having been called out to fight by the deceased, who had attended the home with others. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence in light of the plea of guilty, the circumstances of the offence, and mitigating factors such as Stanley's early plea, his vulnerability in custody, and the need to consider Bugmy principles, true remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Stanley, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the context of excessive self-defence, and the mitigating factors presented. The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to balance the gravity of the offence with the mitigating circumstances, and the requirement to consider the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and true remorse. Additionally, the court was required to consider the special circumstances of the case, including Stanley's vulnerability in custody and the need to comply with the principles outlined in Bugmy.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but found that the mitigating factors, including Stanley's early plea, true remorse, and good prospects of rehabilitation, warranted a sentence that took into account his vulnerability in custody. The court also considered the special circumstances of the case, including the need to comply with Bugmy principles, and determined that an appropriate sentence could be achieved by taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The court ultimately sentenced Stanley to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the seriousness of the offence while also recognising the mitigating factors and special circumstances.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for a term of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years and three months, reflecting the court's consideration of the circumstances of the offence, the mitigating factors, and the special circumstances of the case. The court also ordered that Stanley be given credit for the time already served in custody.

Orders