Legal Research
Cases
R v White

R v White

Case [2023] NSWSC 611 8 June 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2023] NSWSC 611
Hearing dates: 6 June 2023
Date of orders: 8 June 2023
Decision date: 08 June 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years commencing on 12 May 2020 and expiring on 11 May 2029. The Court sets a non-parole period of 6 years commencing on 12 May 2020. The balance of the term is 3 years commencing 12 May 2026 and expiring on 11 May 2029.

Catchwords:
CRIME — sentence — manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act — plea of guilty — historical offending in 1988 — punch by offender that caused victim to fall off nearby cliff — where offender did not seek assistance or alert authorities after victim’s fall — offender’s cognitive impairment did not affect objective seriousness of offending — serious instance of manslaughter — victim impact statements — victim’s family and partner experienced decades of grief and unanswered questions — offender’s youth, degree of cognitive impairment and violent, dysfunctional background at the time of offending both contributed to offending and reduced offender’s moral culpability — offender’s remorse given little weight due to cognitive impairments — “ceiling principle” — sentenced imposed not to exceed offender’s previous sentence for murder — sentencing principles as at the time of offending to be applied

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Life Sentences) Amendment Act 1989 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AJB v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 51; (2007) 169 A Crim R 32
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DS v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
Dulihanty v R [2013] NSWCCA 275
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Armstrong [2015] NSWCCA 273
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; [2002] NSWCCA 129
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v White [2022] NSWSC 11
R v White (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 65
R v White [2022] NSWSC 525
White v R [2022] NSWCCA 241
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Sentence
Parties: R (Crown)
Scott Phillip White (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr B Hatfield (Crown)
Mr T Game SC; Ms G Huxley (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Maria Walz Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/141305

JUDGMENT

As at December 1988, Dr Scott Johnson was 27 years of age. He was a citizen of the United States of America. He had everything to live…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2023] NSWSC 611
Case: [2023] NSWSC 611
Decision Date: 08 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v White involved an individual who pleaded guilty to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The offence occurred in 1988 when the offender delivered a punch to the victim, causing them to fall off a nearby cliff. Following the incident, the offender did not seek assistance or alert authorities. The offender had a cognitive impairment at the time of the offence, which did not diminish the objective seriousness of the crime but did contribute to the offender's moral culpability. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for this serious instance of manslaughter, taking into account the victim impact statements and the offender's background.

The legal issues before the court included whether the offender's cognitive impairment should be considered in determining moral culpability and the appropriate sentence. The court needed to balance the severity of the offence with the offender's personal circumstances, including their youth, cognitive impairment, and violent background at the time of the offence. The court also had to consider the victim impact statements, which highlighted the profound grief and unanswered questions experienced by the victim's family and partner over the decades since the incident.

In determining the sentence, the court held that the offender's cognitive impairment did not affect the objective seriousness of the offending. However, it recognised that the offender's youth, degree of cognitive impairment, and violent, dysfunctional background contributed to the offending and reduced the offender's moral culpability. The court gave little weight to the offender's remorse due to their cognitive impairments. Applying the "ceiling principle," the court imposed a sentence not to exceed the offender's previous sentence for murder, and applied sentencing principles as they existed at the time of the offence. The court's decision reflected a nuanced approach to sentencing, balancing the need for punishment with consideration of the offender's personal circumstances.

Orders