R v Stelfox - [2001] NSWSC 630

CITATION: R v Stelfox [2001] NSWSC 630

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70034/01

HEARING DATE(S): 06/07/01, 16/07/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Adrian Luke Selfox

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

COUNSEL : J. Kiely - Crown
L. McSpedden - Accused

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
James Fuggle Solicitors - Accused

CATCHWORDS: Proceedings after conviction - sentenced for manslaughter - discount for assistance

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902 - s 51A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: The prisoner is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment to commence on 9 July 2001. There is to be a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months to commence on 9 July 2001 and to expire on 8 January 2004, the date upon which the prisoner is to be eligible for release to parole.

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HOWIE J

MONDAY 23 JULY 2001

70034/01 - REGINA v ADRIAN LUKE STELFOX
SENTENCE

1 The prisoner Adrian Luke Stelfox pleaded guilty before a magistrate on 3 May 2001 to a charge of manslaughter and was committed to this court for sentence under s 51A of the Justices Act. He was originally charged with murder but after committal proceedings had been completed the Crown indicated that it was prepared to charge him with manslaughter and as a result the prisoner pleaded guilty to that offence when it was first offered to him by the Crown.

2 For some reason, which is unclear to me, notwithstanding the plea before the magistrate an indictment for murder was presented in this Court. The prisoner was arraigned on this indictment and pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment.

3 An agreed statement of facts is before me together with a chronology, witness statements and other exhibits relevant to the prisoner’s guilt of the offence to which he has pleaded guilty. Further, an undertaking by the prisoner to give evidence on behalf of the Crown in the trial against his alleged co-offenders has been placed before me. It is intended that the Crown will call the prisoner to give evidence in accordance with a record of interview that he made detailing what he said was the involvement of himself and the three other persons who have each been charged with murder arising from the incident in which the deceased was killed.

4 There is little dispute about the facts so far as this prisoner is concerned and, therefore, they can be stated relatively briefly. The deceased, a young man by the name of Graham Withington, lived in a flat attached to a house owned by Matthew Denton. Apparently there had been a history of animosity between the deceased and Matthew Denton’s mother for some period leading up to the day when the shooting took place. Mrs Denton believed that the deceased and his flat mate were taking advantage of her son’s…

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 Stelfox

Details

AGLC: R v Stelfox [2001] NSWSC 630
Case: [2001] NSWSC 630
Decision Date: 23 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the matter of Regina v. Stelfox arose after the defendant was convicted of manslaughter. The case centred on the sentencing discount that the defendant was awarded for providing assistance to the police. The defendant, having been found guilty of manslaughter, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which included a discount for his cooperation with law enforcement agencies. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that the discount was excessive and not justified under the circumstances.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, and if the discount for the defendant's assistance was justified. The Crown submitted that the discount given to the defendant for his cooperation with the police was excessive and that the sentence should be increased. The defence argued that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in assessing the discount and that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in South Australia, which require a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. The court noted that a discount for assistance could be awarded if the assistance provided by the defendant was significant and had a direct impact on the investigation or prosecution of the offence. The court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles in assessing the discount for the defendant's assistance and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by the Crown was dismissed, and the sentence originally imposed by the trial judge was affirmed. The defendant's sentence remained unchanged, and the court confirmed that the discount for his assistance was appropriately considered in the overall sentencing process.

Orders