R v Wheatley - [2007] NSWSC 1182

CITATION: R v Wheatley [2007] NSWSC 1182

HEARING DATE(S): 19/10/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a non-parole period of two years to date from 30 September 2006; The non-parole period will expire on 29 September 2008; Sentenced to a balance of term of one year and nine months commencing on 30 September 2008 and expiring on 29 June 2010.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - chronic schizonphrenic illness - not causally related to offence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Blacklidge (unreported) NSWCCA, 12 December 1995
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Hogan [2004] NSWSC 959
R v Kerr [2004] NSWSC 75
R v Maclucan [2003] NSWSC 799
R v O’Hare [2003] NSWSC 652
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

PARTIES: Regina
Craig William Wheatley (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/00002655

COUNSEL: T Hoyle SC (Crown)
P M Winch (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh
SE O'Connor

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

BELL J

30 October 2007

2007/00002655 Regina v Craig William Wheatley
JUDGMENT

1 BELL J: Craig William Wheatley was committed for sentence by the Local Court on 24 July 2007 following his plea of guilty to the manslaughter Robert Narramore an offence which occurred on 30 September 2006 at Riverwood. He adhered to his plea of guilty in this Court on 14 September 2007.

2 The facts on which the Court is to sentence the offender are contained an agreed statement that is signed by a solicitor from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the offender and the offender’s solicitor; exhibit “A”.

3 The offender was aged 45 years at the date of the offence. He suffers from chronic schizophrenic illness. On 30 September 2006 he was walking north on the footpath of Belmore Road towards the intersection with Thurlow Street. The deceased, an 83 year-old man, was approaching the same intersection on foot. As the deceased reached the traffic control signal the offender pushed him out of his way. The deceased fell to his left landing in lane one of Belmore Road, which is the lane designated for vehicles turning left at the traffic lights. Traffic on Belmore Road at the time was moderate. The deceased was struck by the rear nearside tyre of a vehicle which was navigating the corner. The driver of the vehicle continued for a short distance before stopping and returning to the scene. Another driver, Ms Stewart, was travelling immediately behind the vehicle which collided with the deceased. She saw the offender push the deceased and the subsequent collision. She stopped her vehicle and went to the assistance of the deceased, as did a number of persons. The deceased was conveyed to Liverpool Hospital, where he was treated for serious head trauma. He died at the hospital within hours.

4 The offender pushed the deceased using his two…

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 Wheatley

Details

AGLC: R v Wheatley [2007] NSWSC 1182
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1182
Decision Date: 30 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wheatley involved the respondent, Wheatley, who was convicted of manslaughter by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The central issue was the sentencing of Wheatley, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter, following a series of events that led to the death of a person during an unlawful and dangerous act. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence while considering the mitigating factor of Wheatley's chronic schizophrenic illness, which was not causally related to the offence.

The legal issues the court had to address included the relevance of Wheatley's mental illness to the sentencing process, specifically whether it should be considered as a mitigating factor in the determination of his sentence. The defence argued that Wheatley's illness should be taken into account due to its impact on his behaviour and decision-making at the time of the offence. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the illness did not play a role in the commission of the offence and therefore should not influence the sentence.

The court, in its reasoning, acknowledged the mitigating effect of Wheatley's chronic schizophrenic illness but found that it was not directly related to the circumstances of the offence. The judge held that while the illness was a significant factor in assessing Wheatley's culpability, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and protection of society. The final order was that Wheatley be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account his mental health condition as a mitigating factor but not allowing it to absolve him of the consequences of his actions.

Orders