Regina v Scott - [2003] NSWSC 627

CITATION: Regina v Scott [2003] NSWSC 627

HEARING DATE(S): 07/07/03, 08/07/03, 09/07/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: Sentence you to a term of 5 years imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months, which is to commence on 8 June 2002 and is to expire on 7 December 2004. The offender is to be eligible to parole on 7 December 2004. I recommend that during her time in prison, the offender should be provided with ongoing psychiatric assessment and treatment and she should receive counselling for alcohol abuse if that faclity continues to be available. The conditioons of parole are to include conditions as to supervision required by her depression and alcohol dependency; and as to counselling to promote her recovery from alcohol dependency.

CATCHWORDS: Plea to Manslaughter - Alcoholic - Excessive self defence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Regine v Previtera (1997) 94 ACR 76
Bollen v Regina (1998) 99 ACR 510
Regina v McDonald (NSWCCA unreported 12 December 1995)
Regina v Hill (1981) 3 A CrimR 397 at 402 per Street CJ
Regina v Cameron (2002) 187 ALR 65
Regina v Woolsley (NSWSC unreported 19 August 1993 per Newman J)
Regina v Yeoman [2003] NSWSC 194 per Buddin J

PARTIES :
Regina v Cheryl Ann Scott

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70092/02

COUNSEL: Mr L. Gray - Crown
Mr T. Healey; Ms Gibbons - Offender

SOLICITORS: Office of the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, Wollongong - Crown
Roach & Halligan - Offender

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

WHEALY J

NOWRA: THURSDAY 10 July 2003

70092/02 - REGINA v Cheryl Ann SCOTT

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Cheryl Ann Scott, whom I shall refer to as the offender, was indicted on 7 July 2003 before myself and a jury panel. The charge in the indictment was that the offender between 12 March 2002 and 3 April 2002 at Moruya in the state of New South Wales did murder Wayne Robert Williams. To this charge the offender pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea in satisfaction of the charge in the indictment.

2 The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years (s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900).

3 Submissions and evidence were taken on both 8 and 9 July and the matter was adjourned until today for sentence.

4 I am required to find the facts relevant to sentencing. It is necessary that the facts I find must, so far as they relate to findings of fact against the offender, be findings arrived at beyond reasonable doubt. The onus of proof going to matters of mitigation is on the offender, who must establish such matters on the balance of probabilities.

5 There is substantial agreement between the Crown and Mr Healey of Senior Counsel, who appears on behalf of the offender, as to the basis…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: Regina v Scott [2003] NSWSC 627
Case: [2003] NSWSC 627
Decision Date: 10 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Scott, the defendant was charged with murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The defendant claimed excessive self-defence, asserting that he was acting in response to an attack and that his reaction was influenced by alcohol consumption. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the defendant's plea of excessive self-defence was valid and whether his alcohol consumption at the time of the incident should be considered in assessing his actions.

The court examined the principles of self-defence under the common law, focusing on whether the force used was proportionate to the threat faced. The court also considered the impact of alcohol on the defendant's ability to assess the situation and act proportionately. The defence argued that the defendant's intoxication should be taken into account when evaluating the reasonableness of his response. The prosecution contended that intoxication does not excuse excessive force used in self-defence.

The court found that the defendant's plea of excessive self-defence was valid, as the evidence supported that he genuinely believed he was in imminent danger of serious harm. The court acknowledged the defendant's intoxication but concluded that it did not negate his belief in the necessity of using force. The court accepted that while alcohol impaired his judgment, it did not absolve him of responsibility for the excessive force used. The defendant's intoxication was considered in determining the proportionality of his response but did not invalidate the plea of self-defence. The court accepted the plea of manslaughter and imposed a sentence accordingly.

Orders