Legal Research
Cases
R v Winefield

R v Winefield

Case [2011] NSWSC 337 20 April 2011

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Winefield [2011] NSWSC 337
Hearing dates: 19 April 2011
Decision date: 20 April 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 10 years comprised of a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months to date from 14 February 2009 and to expire on 13 August 2016, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months expiring on 13 February 2019.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - offender armed with a knife - offence committed in the presence of children - violence by road user
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lothian [2006] VSCA 217
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
Police v Kennedy [2005] SASC 173
R v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377; 160 A Crim R 1
R v Hamilton; R v Sandilands [2007] NSWSC 452
R v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; 222 CLR 67
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43; 149 A Crim R 505
R v Ward [2010] NSWSC 304
R v West [2011] NSWCCA 91
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Mitchell Anthony Winefield (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
P Barnett SC (Crown)
P Young SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/66358

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: On 23 February 2011 the Crown presented an indictment charging the offender, Mitchell Anthony Winefield, with the murder of Caleb Jarrett at Nambucca Heads on 14 February 2009. On 16 March 2011 the jury acquitted him of murder and convicted him of manslaughter. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is 25 years imprisonment.

It was not in dispute that Caleb died from a penetrating stab wound to his chest which entered the chest cavity before passing through the pericardium into the left ventricle of the heart. Three further stab wounds were identified towards the centre of his chest, none of which penetrated beyond a few centimetres. He also sustained a stab wound to the upper right side of the abdomen which entered the abdominal cavity and a complex of slash wounds to the left side of the abdomen, his upper right thigh, lower left thigh and groin, each of which penetrated deeply into the subcutaneous tissue. Professor Lyons, forensic pathologist, was unable to appoint the order in which the wounds were sustained but gave unchallenged evidence that only the wound to the chest was fatal.

It was not is dispute at the trial that Caleb sustained each of the wounds in the course of a fight with the offender which erupted shortly before midnight when the two men confronted each other on the forecourt/driveway area 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 Winefield

Details

AGLC: R v Winefield [2011] NSWSC 337
Case: [2011] NSWSC 337
Decision Date: 20 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the Court, the defendant was charged with manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, following a road rage incident in which the victim was stabbed with a knife. The incident occurred in the presence of several children. The defendant appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was excessive and did not adequately reflect the circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and should be set aside. The court needed to consider the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the impact on the victim and their family, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court was also required to assess whether the trial judge had properly considered the principles of sentencing and whether there were any errors in the application of those principles.

The court held that while the sentence imposed was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had considered the principles of sentencing and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, which involved the use of a knife and occurred in the presence of children. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in cases involving violence by a road user, particularly when children were present. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court made no orders for costs.

Orders