Regina v Quealey - [2011] NSWSC 42

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v Quealey [2011] NSWSC 42
Hearing dates: 17 December 2010
Decision date: 11 February 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hall J
Decision:
On the offence of manslaughter, the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months to commence on 4 February 2010 and to expire on 3 August 2013 and to a parole period of 2 years and 6 months to expire on 3 February 2016.
In respect of the two offences under s.195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (intentionally/recklessly destroy/damage property), the bonds under s.9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act are revoked and the offender is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 2 months to commence on 4 February 2010 and to expire on 3 April 2010.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1
Regina v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
Regina v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Regina v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374, (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
Regina v MacDonald (NSWCCA, unreported 12 December 1995)
Regina v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
Regina v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202
Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Regina v Julie Ann Quealey [2010] NSWCCA 116
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: REGINA v MELANIE MAY QUEALEY
Representation: Counsel:
C: P Barnett SC
O: J Hickleton
Solicitors:
C: S E O'Connor
O: George Sten & Co

File Number(s): 2009/224150 2009/59767 2009/43815

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender, Melanie May Quealey, was charged on indictment dated 19 October 2010 that on 4 November 2009, at Cessnock, she did murder Tony Keith Coleman.

On 10 November 2010, she was convicted by a jury on a charge of manslaughter in relation to the deceased's death. She now stands for sentence in relation to her conviction.

The offender is presently aged 29 years (date of birth, 6 July 1981).

The offender has been in custody since her arrest on 5 November 2009. It is to be noted at this point that the offender has since been sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of the period in relation to other offences. Accordingly, the Crown has submitted that the earliest date upon which the sentence to be imposed in respect of the subject offence is 4 March 2010. I will return to discuss that aspect later in these remarks.

At the sentencing hearing on 17 December 2010, the Crown tendered a number of documents. These together constitute Exhibit A in the sentencing proceedings. Included within that exhibit is a Victim Impact Statement of Jennifer Jones dated 19 November 2010 to which I will refer later in these remarks.

Facts

The offender did not give evidence at the trial and there was no witness to the events surrounding and…

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 Quealey

Details

AGLC: Regina v Quealey [2011] NSWSC 42
Case: [2011] NSWSC 42
Decision Date: 11 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Quealey, the matter before the court was a case of manslaughter. The accused, Quealey, was charged with the death of another individual. The dispute centred on the degree of fault attributable to Quealey and whether the circumstances warranted a conviction for manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The key legal issues revolved around the definitions and elements of manslaughter, particularly whether the accused's actions constituted a reckless disregard for human life or a criminal negligence that led to the victim's death. The court also had to determine if the accused's state of mind and the circumstances surrounding the incident supported a conviction for manslaughter.

The court examined the evidence and legal principles to discern whether the accused's actions met the threshold for manslaughter. It considered whether there was a voluntary act or omission that caused the death and if this act or omission was reckless or criminally negligent. The court deliberated on the applicable statutory definitions and case law precedents to establish the standard of care required and whether it was breached. Ultimately, the court found that Quealey's conduct amounted to a reckless disregard for human life, fulfilling the criteria for manslaughter. The evidence supported the conclusion that the accused's actions directly contributed to the victim's death, and there was a clear breach of the duty of care owed to the deceased.

Consequently, the court convicted Quealey of manslaughter. The judgment detailed the reasoning behind the conviction, emphasising the recklessness and negligence in Quealey's actions. The final orders included the sentencing, which was determined by the court based on the severity of the crime and the circumstances of the offence. Quealey was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the manslaughter charge and the need for punishment and deterrence.

Orders