R v Strahan - [2000] NSWSC 537

CITATION: R v STRAHAN [2000] NSWSC 537

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70215/98

HEARING DATE(S): 16/03/00, 31/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 31 March 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v Martin Francis STRAHAN

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P Conlon
Offender: WC Terracini SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Offender: Keith Thomas & David St John

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - accessory after the fact of manslaughter

DECISION: See paragraph 19.

THE SUPREME COURT REVISED
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Friday, 31 March 2000
70215/98 - REGINA v Martin Francis STRAHAN
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: Martin Francis Strahan has pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact of the manslaughter by Brian John Robson of Ronald Charles Brotherton. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.
2   The deceased, Ronald Charles Brotherton, was living in the Moruya area. He was out of a job and addicted to alcohol and illegal drugs. Mr and Mrs Brian Robson, who lived in the town of Moruya, took pity on him and invited him to stay with them and their seven children.
3   During the few months that he lived with the Robsons the deceased used heroin. That fact became known to the principal of the school attended by the Robson children and to other local authorities. The Department of Community Services threatened to remove the children from the household, asserting that they were not being properly looked after. That caused Mr and Mrs Robson to require the deceased to leave their house, and he did.
4   The deceased then presumed upon the offender and his de facto partner, Ms Leanne Elizabeth Holmes, to allow him to live with them.
5   The Robsons were not well off. In September 1997 they were preparing to move to Nowra and purchased a motor vehicle for that purpose for $300. They had spent several months working on it at a cost of at least $1,200 and the car was ready for registration by the end of September.
6   The deceased came to their house while the Robsons were away, stole the car, drove it off the road and badly damaged it. It was a write-off. He told them that he would pay for the repairs but nobody expected him to keep that promise. He had never repaid the kindnesses the Robsons and others had allowed him.
7   The offender and Ms Holmes were friends of the Robsons and were upset about what had happened. They in turn asked the deceased to leave, and he moved into the house of a man called Shipley about ten kilometres away.
8   One day, Mr Robson and the offender were at the Robsons’ house talking about the deceased. Mr Robson asked the offender to give him a lift to Mr Shipley’s house to see the deceased. Mr Robson was intending to give the deceased a beating. The offender knew what Mr Robson was intending to do. The two men drove to the Shipley…

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 Strahan

Details

AGLC: R v Strahan [2000] NSWSC 537
Case: [2000] NSWSC 537
Decision Date: 31 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against sentencing brought by the respondent, Strahan, who was found to be an accessory after the fact of manslaughter. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in his assessment of the relevant principles of sentencing in relation to accessories after the fact.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to accessories after the fact, and the appropriate weight to be given to factors such as the degree of participation and the level of moral blameworthiness. The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in his assessment of the relevant principles, and had given insufficient weight to the fact that Strahan had played a relatively minor role in the events leading to the manslaughter. The court also found that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the level of moral blameworthiness attaching to Strahan's conduct.

As a result of these errors, the court allowed the appeal and quashed the original sentence. The court ordered that Strahan be re-sentenced by a different judge, with directions to properly apply the relevant principles of sentencing to the facts of the case. The court also noted that the re-sentencing judge should consider the possibility of a non-custodial sentence, given Strahan's relatively minor role in the events leading to the manslaughter.

Orders