R v Stephenson - [2007] NSWSC 672

CITATION: R v Stephenson [2007] NSWSC 672

HEARING DATE(S): 23/03/2007; 30/03/2007; 08/06/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
29 June 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: Imprisonment for a non-parole period of three-and-a-half years commencing on 25 February 2006 and expiring on 24 August 2009, and a balance of term of two-and-a-half years, commencing on 25 August 2009 and expiring on 24 February 2012.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Manslaughter - domestic context - no history of violence - offender affected by drugs and alcohol

CASES CITED: R v Hamid (2006) 164 A Crim R 179
R v MacDonald (CCA, unreported, 12 December 1995)
R v Nardoni [1999] NSWSC 1097
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Darren Robert Stephenson (offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/2881

COUNSEL: P Barrett (Crown)
P Punch (offender)

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
M Raphael & Assoc (offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIDDEN J

Friday, 29 June 2007

2006/2881 Regina v Darren Robert Stephenson
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Darren Stephenson, stands for sentence, having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his partner, Jodie Zaric on 25 February 2006. That plea was accepted by the Crown in discharge of an indictment for murder.

Facts

2 An agreed statement of facts has been prepared, supplemented by certain further material to which I shall refer. The agreed facts, to which I have made some inconsequential amendments, are as follows:

The victim Jody Zaric was born on 22 August 1978 and was aged 27 years at the time of her death. The offender was born on 18 January 1963 and was aged 43 years at the time of the victim’s death.

The victim and the offender had been in an intimate relationship for approximately eight years prior to her death. The victim would spend some of her time living with the offender and the remainder of her time living with her mother. The relationship was a volatile one.

On Friday 24 February 2006 the victim won $10,000 in a competition run by a radio station.

From about 5pm that day the victim and the offender were spending the evening celebrating the win at 3 Asford Close, Hinchinbrook. This is the residential address of the offender. No one else was present during the evening.

Throughout the evening the victim and the offender consumed alcohol as well as some amphetamines and cannabis. The offender had consumed about six or seven beers. The offender consumed half of a fifty dollar supply of speed and a couple of cones of cannabis. The victim also consumed some amphetamines and speed.

In the early hours of the morning on Saturday 25 February 2006 a verbal argument developed between the offender and the victim. During the argument the offender punched the victim several times to the head with a closed fist. As a result of…

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 Stephenson

Details

AGLC: R v Stephenson [2007] NSWSC 672
Case: [2007] NSWSC 672
Decision Date: 29 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stephenson involved the defendant, who was charged with manslaughter in a domestic setting. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had no prior history of violence but had been under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time of the offence. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's intoxication and lack of a violent history should be considered as mitigating factors in sentencing. The court was required to balance these factors against the gravity of the offence, which involved the death of another person in a domestic context. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and deterrence in arriving at a just sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised that the defendant's intoxication was a significant factor but emphasised that it did not excuse the gravity of the offence. The court found that while the defendant had no prior history of violence, the nature of the crime was severe, particularly given the domestic context. The court concluded that the sentence should reflect both the mitigating circumstances and the need to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence. The court ultimately determined that the defendant should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving a certain period.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for a specified term, with parole eligibility after serving a specified period. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account both the mitigating factors and the seriousness of the crime.

Orders