Regina v Sharon Kaye Yeoman - [2003] NSWSC 194

CITATION: Regina v Sharon Kaye Yeoman [2003] NSWSC 194

HEARING DATE(S): 28 February 2003, 21 March 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Pursuant to s9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 I make an order directing the offender to enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of four years. In accordance with s 95 of that Act that bond will be subject to the following conditions: 1 that you appear before the court if called on to do so at any time during the term of that bond; 2 that you be of good behaviour during the term of the bond; 3 that you accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service for the duration of the bond and in particular obey all reasonable directions of the Service in relation to attending and participating in programs, counselling and treatment in respect of issues relating to alcohol.

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - plea of guilty - background of domestic violence and chronic alcoholism - powerful subjective case.

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

CASES CITED: R v Bogunovich (1985) 16 A Crim R 456
R v Cameron (2002) 187 ALR 65
R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306
R v Gardner (NSWSC unreported 27 March 1992)
R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Jans [2000] NSWSC 525
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWSC 109
R v McDonald (CCA unreported 12 December 1995)
R v Melrose [2001] NSWSC 847
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Roberts (NSWSC 31 August 1989)
R v Runjanjic & Kontinnen (1991) 56 SASR 114
R v Spencer (NSWSC unreported 18 December 1992)
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Troja (CCA unreported 16 July 1991)
R v Varagnolo (NSWSC unreported 21 March 1996)
R v Woolsey (NSWSC unreported 19 August 1993)

PARTIES :
Regina
Sharon Kaye Yeoman

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70077/2002

COUNSEL: P Lynch (Crown)
SC Craigie SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
DJ Humphreys (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

FRIDAY 21 MARCH 2003

70077/02 – REGINA v SHARON KAYE YEOMAN
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 28 February 2003 Sharon Yeoman (the offender) pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her de facto husband, Garry Maxwell Jones at Temora on 16 April 2002. Mr Jones’ death was caused by a single stab wound with a knife to his chest which penetrated his heart. The basis upon which the plea was entered was that that conduct amounted to an unlawful and dangerous act on the part of the offender. The offender was arrested on 17 April 2002 and spent that night in custody. She has been on bail ever since.

2 The offence occurred against the not unfamiliar backdrop of domestic violence and chronic alcoholism. The offender had lived with the deceased for a period of 25 years.…

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 Sharon Kaye Yeoman 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: [2003] NSWSC 194
Decision Date: 21 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Sharon Kaye Yeoman, was charged with manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The offence arose from an unlawful and dangerous act that led to the death of an individual. Yeoman entered a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter. The case presented a complex background involving a history of domestic violence and chronic alcoholism, which significantly influenced the circumstances of the incident. The court was tasked with considering these factors in the context of the plea and determining the appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the nature and gravity of the unlawful and dangerous act, the defendant's history of domestic violence and alcoholism, and the impact of these factors on the sentencing. The court had to assess the subjective circumstances of the case, including the powerful personal background of the defendant, to determine an appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court needed to balance the need for punishment with considerations of rehabilitation and deterrence.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the powerful subjective case presented by the defendant's background. The court acknowledged the severe impact of domestic violence and chronic alcoholism on Yeoman's actions. Despite the plea of guilty, the court carefully weighed these factors in arriving at a sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to address the seriousness of the offence and to provide an opportunity for the defendant to address her underlying issues. The court sentenced Yeoman to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the need for both punishment and rehabilitation.

The court's final orders included the imposition of a custodial sentence on the defendant, Sharon Kaye Yeoman, for the offence of manslaughter. The sentence was designed to reflect the seriousness of the crime while also considering the defendant's personal circumstances and the need for rehabilitation. The court's decision emphasised the importance of addressing the root causes of the defendant's behaviour to prevent future offending.

Orders