R v Woutersz (No 2) - [2018] ACTSC 44

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Woutersz (No 2)
Citation:	[2018] ACTSC 44
Hearing Dates:	9 October, 8 December 2017
DecisionDate:	28 February 2018
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	1. The offender is convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 9 years and 9 months imprisonment backdated to 17 October 2014. 2. A non-parole period of 5 years is set, to run from 17 October 2014 to 16 October 2019.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – plea of guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility – offender “very unwell” at time of killing – role of drug-taking in producing acute episode of mental illness especially relevant to specific deterrence – general deterrence not significant having regard to abnormality of mind – no evidence that prison term would weigh more heavily than on normal person, or would have an adverse effect on offender’s mental health.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 14, 15
Cases Cited:	R v Singh[1999] ACTSC 66; 154 ACTR 93 R v Blacklidge (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Gleeson CJ, Grove and Ireland JJ, 12 December 1995). R v Navin [2016] ACTSC 109 R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Woutersz [2018] ACTSC 36
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Gabriela Woutersz (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Drumgold (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 73 of 2015

The offence

Gabriela Woutersz has pleaded guilty under s 14 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) to the manslaughter of her mother, Cheryl Woutersz, an offence which under s 15 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

The incident

The circumstances in which Ms Woutersz killed her mother are described in some detail in a judgment (R v Woutersz [2018] ACTSC 36) which provides reasons for several findings of fact and law that have had to be made for the purpose of this sentencing.

The judgment reflects an agreed statement of facts, but also refers to some other material taken from the evidence given in Ms Woutersz’ 2016 trial for murder.

In short, Ms Woutersz killed her mother during an acute psychotic episode reflecting an underlying mental illness the course of which was influenced by Ms Woutersz’ heavy use of illicit drugs over several years preceding the killing.

The circumstances leading up to the killing are described in more detail in the judgment I have mentioned, but the background can be summarised quickly.

For several months before the killing, Ms Woutersz had been working on and off as a prostitute in Perth, and apparently using Ice (methylamphetamine) in large quantities. She appeared at that stage to have some mental health difficulties, and had seen mental health professionals in Perth.

She returned to Canberra on 13 October 2014 after a falling out…

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 Woutersz (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Woutersz (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 44
Case: [2018] ACTSC 44
Decision Date: 28 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Woutersz (No 2) involved the offender who pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. The offender was deemed "very unwell" at the time of the killing, which was influenced by an acute episode of mental illness. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the offender's mental state and the role of drug-taking in the episode.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included the significance of general deterrence in sentencing, the role of specific deterrence given the offender's mental state, and whether a prison term would have an adverse effect on the offender's mental health. The court found that general deterrence was not significant in this case due to the abnormality of the offender's mind, and there was no evidence that a prison term would weigh more heavily than on a normal person or adversely affect the offender's mental health.

The court concluded that the offender's very unwell state at the time of the killing and the role of drug-taking in the acute episode of mental illness were crucial factors in determining the sentence. The court sentenced the offender to 9 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 5 years. The sentence was backdated to the date of the offender's arrest.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The offender is convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 9 years and 9 months imprisonment backdated to 17 October 2014.

2. A non-parole period of 5 years is set, to run from 17 October 2014 to 16 October 2019.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.