Regina v Jukes - [2006] NSWSC 1065

CITATION: Regina v Jukes [2006] NSWSC 1065

HEARING DATE(S): 16/08/2006, 24/08/2006, 06/09/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 October 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J at 1

DECISION: Sentence of imprisonment of 12 months with a balance of term of 12 months - such sentence to be fully suspended for 2 years.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter - domestic situation - special circumstances - suspended sentence under s9 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Bogunovich (Maxwell J, 30 May 1985)
R v Stanley Edward Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWSC 109
R v Melrose [2001] NSWSC 847
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Roberts (Hunt J, 31 August 1989, unreported)
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

PARTIES: Crown
Lacy Lee Jukes - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/2088

COUNSEL: Mr Paul Lynch - Crown
Mr John Stratton SC - Offender

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Kamilaroi Legal Services - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Friday, 13 October 2006

2005/2088 – REGINA v Lacy Lee JUKES
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 24 August 2006 Lacy Lee Jukes (the offender) pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mack Tepeanapene Hati at Woolomin on 13 September 2003. Mr Hati’s death was caused by a single stab wound with a knife to the left side of his chest, which damaged his lung and the large blood vessels at the top of the heart. The offender was arrested on 13 September 2003 and was subsequently charged with the offence of murder. She has spent 90 days in custody. She has been at liberty on conditional bail with twice weekly reporting conditions until the present time.

2 There was no agreed basis upon which the plea was entered. On behalf of the offender it was submitted that she should be sentenced on the basis of having committed an unlawful and dangerous act, ie grabbing and holding a knife in the course of a domestic argument. On behalf of the Crown it was submitted that the offender should be sentenced on the basis of manslaughter by provocation or manslaughter by excessive self-defence. The Crown did accept that a finding of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act was open on the facts.

3 This lack of agreement requires me to analyse the facts so far as they are known and to determine on which basis the offender should be sentenced.

Factual Background

4 The following is substantially taken from the statement of agreed facts.

5 The deceased was a 35 year old New Zealand national who had lived in Australia for a number of years. At the time of his death he had been living in a de facto relationship with the offender’s…

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 Jukes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jukes [2006] NSWSC 1065
Case: [2006] NSWSC 1065
Decision Date: 13 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after pleading guilty to the charge. The case was heard in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant committed the offence in a domestic situation and there were special circumstances that needed to be considered in sentencing. The trial judge sentenced the appellant to a suspended sentence under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the trial judge had failed to take into account the special circumstances of the case.

The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge had failed to take into account the special circumstances of the case. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The court also held that the trial judge had taken into account the special circumstances of the case in imposing the sentence.

The court found that the appellant had committed an unlawful and dangerous act that resulted in the death of the victim. The court also found that the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter and that there were special circumstances that needed to be considered in sentencing. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in the circumstances of the case and that the trial judge had taken into account the special circumstances of the case in imposing the sentence. The appeal was dismissed.

No orders were made as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders