Regina v Partington - [2006] NSWSC 442

CITATION: Regina v Partington [2006] NSWSC 442

HEARING DATE(S): 27/2/06, 28/2/06, 1/3/06, 2/3/06, 3/3/06, 6/3/06, 8/3/06, 9/3/06, 10/3/06, 13/3/06, 14/3/06, 15/3/06, 16/3/06, 17/3/06, 16/5/06

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 May 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Mathews AJ at 1

DECISION: A non-parole period of 8 years to commence on 27 August 2004 and to expire on 26 August 2012. The balance of the term of imprisonment is to be 5 years, expiring on 26 August 2017: a total sentence of thirteen years.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999

PARTIES: Regina - Crown
Shane John Partington - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/1393

COUNSEL: Crown: Mr D Howard SC
Offender: Ms A Betts

SOLICITORS: Crown: S C Kavanagh
Offender: G J Goold

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00092110/04/8

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : A D Moore

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 05/03/2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

MATHEWS AJ

16 May 2006

2005/1393 REGINA v Shane John PARTINGTON

SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: On 28 February 2006 Shane John Partington was charged by way of indictment with the murder of Anthony Gaspardis on 27 August 2004. He pleaded not guilty and a jury was dually empanelled. On 17 March 2006 the jury found the offender not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The matter was then stood over for sentence. A sentencing hearing was later convened at which both parties presented evidence relevant to sentence. I shall discuss that material a little later. First I should describe the circumstances in which Anthony Gaspardis met his death.

2 On 27 August 2004 the offender was living in a 2-story apartment building at 431 Marrickville Road Dulwich Hill. His apartment was on the upper floor. He lived there alone, although his girlfriend spent a considerable amount of time there with him. On the evening of 27 August his girlfriend, Miss Rafferty, was waiting for him at the apartment. He arrived home late and inebriated, and an argument developed between them. What happened during the course of the argument was explored during a voir dire hearing before the jury trial commenced. I do not propose to go into the details of it here but I accept that the offender became extremely aggressive, and that Miss Rafferty ran out of the apartment. The offender then also left the apartment and went to a nearby hotel, the Gladstone Hotel. There he joined the deceased, Tony Gaspardis, who had been at the hotel since about 3:30 that afternoon. They were both regular patrons at the hotel, and knew each other as drinking companions.

3 After a while the offender and Mr Gaspardis decided to go back to the offender's apartment in order to smoke some marijuana. The CCTV footage shows them leaving the hotel at 5 past 9. The offender did not have a key to his apartment as he had left in great haste after his argument…

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 Partington

Details

AGLC: Regina v Partington [2006] NSWSC 442
Case: [2006] NSWSC 442
Decision Date: 16 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Partington, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter and faced sentencing. The respondent had pleaded guilty to manslaughter by reason of unreckless homicide after he stabbed his partner in the chest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the respondent and the relevance of the plea of guilty to the sentence.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's background and personal circumstances, and the impact of the plea of guilty. The court found that the offence was of a serious nature, involving the use of a weapon and resulting in the death of the victim. However, the court also considered the respondent's background and personal circumstances, including his age, mental health issues, and history of domestic violence. The court found that the plea of guilty was a significant mitigating factor, and that the respondent had shown remorse for his actions. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was imprisonment for a term of nine years, with a non-parole period of six years.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the respondent's background and personal circumstances, and the impact of the plea of guilty. The court found that the sentence should reflect both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors present in the case. The court's decision was consistent with the principles of sentencing in South Australia, which emphasise the importance of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court's final orders were that the respondent be imprisoned for a term of nine years, with a non-parole period of six years.

Orders