Regina v Marsh - [2001] NSWSC 1109

CITATION: Regina v Marsh [2001] NSWSC 1109

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70013/01

HEARING DATE(S): 30 October 2001; 6 November 2001; 23 November 2001; 29 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 November 2001

PARTIES :

The Crown
Stuart Cecil Marsh

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan J

COUNSEL : Dr P Power (Crown)
M Ramage QC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Brezniak Neil-Smith & Co (Offender)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - manslaughter - robbery in company - larceny of a motor vehicle - bag snatch - no special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Georgina Marie Hill v R 3 A Crim R 397

DECISION: See paras 43, 44, 45

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

McCLELLAN J

THURSDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2001

70013/01 - REGINA v Stuart Cecil MARSH

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Stuart Marsh, has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Lanh Ngoc Bui. He has also pleaded guilty to being in company with his co-offender, Clarke, to rob Ms Bui of her handbag and a further offence of take and drive a conveyance without the consent of the owner.

2 On or about 28 July 2000 the offender stole a Ford Falcon, registration number UPM 844 from Aurelia Street, Toongabbie. On the evening of 3 August 2000 he was driving the car when he collected Wayne Clarke, who has previously been sentenced in relation to these matters. The two of them embarked upon an enterprise intending to rob a person of a handbag. Marsh drove the vehicle with Clarke as his passenger to Lidcombe via Strathfield looking for a victim to rob.

3 The deceased Lanh Bui, had attended Lidcombe Club with her boyfriend Tri Dung Tran, where they had dinner. They left the Club at approximately 9 pm and walked a short distance to Tran’s unit at 16-20 Swete Street, Lidcombe. Mr Tran went inside to collect his car keys whilst Ms Bui waited outside the unit on the driveway/footpath area.

4 While she was waiting Marsh drove the stolen car into Swete Street. He stopped the vehicle approximately fifty metres from where Ms Bui was standing and Clarke got out of the vehicle, approached Ms Bui and grabbed her handbag. Marsh continued to drive the vehicle alongside Clarke and Ms Bui. Clarke opened the passenger door and sat on the front passenger seat. Ms Bui pursued Clarke and attempted to retrieve her handbag. Marsh began driving down Swete Street and initially Ms Bui ran alongside the vehicle for a short distance. Marsh briefly stopped the vehicle and Ms Bui partially entered it. Marsh then accelerated and drove the vehicle down Swete Street, swerving from side to side in an attempt to release Ms Bui. The offender then drove the vehicle through the roundabout at the corner of Church Street, clipping the gutter as he made the turn.

5 Ms Bui had hold of Clarke’s head and this protected her from falling. The offender, whilst driving, leaned across and punched Ms Bui…

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 Marsh

Details

AGLC: Regina v Marsh [2001] NSWSC 1109
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1109
Decision Date: 29 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Marsh, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter and other related offences following an incident in which the victim was fatally injured during a robbery. The respondent and his accomplices had snatched the victim's bag, resulting in the victim falling and striking his head on the pavement. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent's crimes.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case and whether any special circumstances existed that would warrant a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines. The court considered the nature of the respondent's crimes, his level of culpability, and the impact of his actions on the victim and their family. The court also examined the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

The court held that, while the respondent's crimes were serious, there were no special circumstances present that would warrant a departure from the usual sentencing guidelines. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and proportionality in sentencing, and noted that the respondent's level of culpability was high. However, the court also considered the respondent's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes and the need for deterrence and proportionality.

The court further ordered that the respondent be subject to a good behaviour bond for a specified period following his release from prison, and that he be required to participate in a rehabilitation program. The court's decision provides guidance on the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in cases of manslaughter and robbery, and highlights the importance of considering both the nature of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders