Regina v Lever - [2000] NSWSC 953

CITATION: REGINA v. LEVER [2000] NSWSC 953

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70040 of 1997

HEARING DATE(S): 12/11/99; 15/11/99 - 30/11/99; 10/3/00; 6/10/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 October 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
LEVER, Samuel Noel

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: D. Howard
Accused: J. Black, QC. (at trial); S. Odgers, SC. (on sentence)

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Accused: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - murder - diminished responsibility - sentence - defence rejected by jury - Crown psychiatrist reversed opinion after verdict - background of violence - killing of spouse by prolonged beating.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
Cheung (CCA, unreported 11 December 1995)
De Souza (Dunford, J., unreported 10 November 1995)

DECISION: Total sentence of 13 years with a non-parole period of nine years to commence 30 November 1999 and to expire 29 November 2008.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70040 of 1997

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 6 OCTOBER 2000

REGINA v. SAMUEL NOEL LEVER
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 30 November 1999 the offender, Samuel Noel Lever, was found guilty by the verdict of a jury of the crime of murder. He had, on the night of 15 November 1996, at Fingal in the State of New South Wales, murdered his life partner, Linda Jo Lever. 2 Objectively, the crime was an appalling one. The offender beat his wife to death using a baton and a strap. He inflicted upwards of 200 blows. He may have kicked his wife, or kneed her, in this ferocious bout of abuse. Following this attack, however, he sought to care for his wife. He summoned the ambulance. When arrested by the police, almost irrationally and incoherently, he sought to explain what he had done and what had occurred. I am entirely satisfied that at that time he was, to some considerable degree, irrational, grieving and contrite. 3 By way of background, it appears, in particular from the observations of Mr. Chalk, who had known the offender professionally and socially, that the offender's conduct had, for months, progressively changed from normal and that he had become, using the term in its lay sense, increasingly paranoid. In particular, the focus of his paranoia was his wife and, as it has been put, on her involvement, in some manner, with some harassment of his home and his family, which he believed he was being subjected to, which harassment may have been based on what was actually occurring in some more or less degree, or have been entirely within his mind, which was, at the time of the killing, I find, gravely affected, at least to the extent of his suffering from the disturbance to which I have referred and some considerable degree of depression. 4 I shall return to the question of the verdict and its effect, and the findings that I might make in law as to the state of the accused's mind at…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Lever and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWSC 953
Decision Date: 6 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Lever involves the defendant, Lever, who was accused of murdering his spouse through prolonged beating. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia, where Lever appealed against his murder conviction and sentence. Lever's defence centred on the claim of diminished responsibility due to his background of violence and a history of mental health issues. The jury, however, rejected this defence and found Lever guilty of murder.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Lever's diminished responsibility should have been accepted, despite the jury's rejection. The court had to determine if the Crown psychiatrist's reversal of opinion after the verdict should have any bearing on the case, given that this reversal occurred after the jury had already reached its decision. Additionally, the court examined the impact of Lever's background of violence and mental health issues on his capacity to control his actions at the time of the offence.

The court held that the psychiatrist's reversed opinion, while informative, did not alter the jury's verdict, which was final and binding. The court emphasised the importance of the jury's role in assessing the credibility of expert evidence and the weight to be given to it. The background of violence and mental health issues were considered in the sentencing phase, but they did not negate the gravity of the crime or provide a defence against the murder charge. The court ultimately upheld the conviction and sentence, affirming the jury's decision on the basis that the evidence presented was sufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders