Regina v Dalton - [2004] NSWSC 446

CITATION: REGINA v DALTON [2004] NSWSC 446 revised - 26/05/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 5/4/04-8/4/04, 13/4/04, 15/4/04, 19/4/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 April 2004

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to serve a minimum term of imprisonment of three years and three months from 10 September 2002. Eligible to be released on parole on 9 December 2005. The balance of the term of seven years' imprisonment will expire on 9 September 2009. To be placed under the supervision and control of the Adult Probation Service for the period of parole or such earlier time as that service considers desirable.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter - sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s44

CASES CITED: R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Dennis James Dalton (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70019/03

COUNSEL: Mr N A P Harrison (Crown)
Mr A W Barber (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Mr A Horowitz (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associates (Offender)

Ex tempore - revised

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CRIMINAL DIVISION

ADAMS J

LISMORE: MONDAY 19 APRIL 2004

70019/03 - REGINA v DENNIS JAMES DALTON

NON PUBLICATION ORDER AS TO NAMES OF VICTIM AND VICTIM'S MOTHER

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender pleaded guilty before me on 8 April 2004 to the offence of manslaughter arising out of the death of a young child on 18 January 2002. It is agreed that the basis of that plea is that the offender caused the child’s death by an unlawful and dangerous act. This plea comes on the verge of the commencement of the offender's trial. Although it has some utilitarian value, this is not great. Aside from avoiding the expense and inconvenience of a trial, its main virtue is that it avoids the necessity of the child's mother giving evidence, which must have been very distressing for her. In accordance with the law as laid down by the Court of Criminal Appeal it seems to me that an appropriate discount from the sentence I would otherwise have imposed is of the order of ten percent.

2 The facts have been agreed and may be briefly stated. The offender was born on 2 December 1983 and was accordingly just over eighteen years of age at the time of the offence. He is now something over twenty years old. In January 2002, the offender and the child’s mother, were living together in a de facto relationship in Casino with the mother’s two children, a baby, born 26 November 2001 and the child born 23 January 2000. The mother was about a year younger than the offender. The child’s natural father, was then serving a prison sentence in Queensland. The offender and the mother had known each other prior to this, when the mother was living with the child and his natural father in Bundaberg. Shortly after the natural father’s incarceration, the offender, the mother and the child moved to Casino. It was mid year and the mother was then three…

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 Regina v Dalton

Details

AGLC: Regina v Dalton [2004] NSWSC 446
Case: [2004] NSWSC 446
Decision Date: 19 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Dalton, the respondent, Dalton, was convicted of manslaughter and was subsequently brought before the court for sentencing. The court heard the case in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The incident in question involved the death of a person due to actions by Dalton, which were deemed to fall short of murder but still amounted to unlawful killing. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Dalton, given the circumstances surrounding the manslaughter charge.

The court considered several factors in determining the appropriate sentence. These included the nature and circumstances of the offence, Dalton's culpability, any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the impact on the victim's family. The court also had to weigh the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in sentencing. It was established that Dalton's actions were not premeditated but were a result of circumstances that escalated to a fatal outcome. The court further evaluated whether there were any mitigating factors such as Dalton's background, remorse, or any other personal circumstances that could influence the sentencing.

After careful consideration of all the factors, the court found that while the act was grievous, it was not premeditated, and Dalton showed some level of remorse. The court acknowledged the emotional and psychological impact on both the victim's family and Dalton himself. The court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to uphold the principle of deterrence and retribution, but also took into account the potential for rehabilitation. The court sentenced Dalton to a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions regarding parole and rehabilitation programs.

Orders