Regina v Suters - [2000] NSWSC 1116

CITATION: REGINA v. SUTERS [2000] NSWSC 1116

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70025 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 27.3.00; 2.6.00; 30.6.00; 18.8.00; 20.10.00; 1.12.00

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 December 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
SUTERS, Paul Anthony

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: M. Cunneen
Off: W. Flynn

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Off: Marsdens

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - manslaughter - accessory - limited role - context of burglary, robbery contemplated - effect of time lapse before charge - contrition and rehabilitation - active assistance in this and other matters - early plea - avoidance of disparity in treatment - reliance on Crown's submission.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Thomson & Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
Dinsdale [2000] HCA 54
Hodges (1997) 95 A. Crim. R. 85
Postiglioni (1997) 71 ALJR 875

DECISION: Imprisonment for two years by way of periodic detention.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70025 of 1998

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 1 DECEMBER 2000

REGINA v. PAUL ANTHONY WILLIAM SUTERS
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Paul Anthony William Suters has pleaded guilty to a charge in an indictment that he was party to the manslaughter of James Alan Kelly in May of 1992 at Waitara. It was over eight years ago that the killing occurred. The short facts have been provided to me in written form. Both parties agree that they properly represent the facts upon which Mr. Suters should be sentenced for his crime. 2 It must be said at the outset that he did not strike the blow that killed the deceased. The deceased died from a heart attack during an assault perpetrated upon him by a companion of Mr. Suters who had, with Mr. Suters, agreed to rob the deceased. Mr. Suters and his companion had been induced by an adult neighbour of the deceased to take that course. They had been so induced by the suggestion that a large sum of money would be available should the deceased's house be burgled and it was suggested the deceased would not be present at the time it was suggested the burglary should occur. 3 It was intended in the event that the deceased was so present that he would be innocuously disabled by the use of an anaesthetic. However, when the offenders arrived at the premises the deceased was present. Mr. Suters' companion struck him a number of times with a Maglite torch. That was the context for the heart attack which killed the deceased. 4 This offender had waited at the front of the house keeping lookout and was available to assist if his companion might be the subject of physical attack by the householder likely to overcome him. 5 Subsequently, the householder having died, the two young men disposed of the body by burying it in bushland and located a small sum of money of $120, a microwave oven, and a box containing a clock. This offender handed…

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 Suters

Details

AGLC: Regina v Suters [2000] NSWSC 1116
Case: [2000] NSWSC 1116
Decision Date: 1 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Suters, the respondent was sentenced for his involvement as an accessory in a manslaughter that occurred during a burglary. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which needed to address the appropriate sentence considering the respondent's role and other mitigating factors. The primary legal issues were the respondent's level of involvement, the context of the crime, the delay before being charged, and his subsequent contrition and rehabilitation efforts. The court had to balance these factors to determine a fair and just sentence.

The court considered the respondent's limited role as an accessory in the manslaughter, which occurred during a planned burglary and robbery. It examined the significant time that had elapsed before the charges were laid and the respondent's plea of guilt, which was entered early in the proceedings. The court also took into account the respondent's active assistance in resolving this and other matters, as well as his efforts towards rehabilitation. These factors, along with the Crown's submission on sentencing, played a crucial role in the court's deliberation.

In reaching its decision, the court gave considerable weight to the respondent's early plea of guilt and his active cooperation, which helped avoid a disparity in treatment compared to other participants in the crime. The court acknowledged the respondent's efforts to demonstrate contrition and his potential for rehabilitation, which were seen as significant mitigating factors. By relying on these considerations and the Crown's sentencing proposal, the court determined an appropriate sentence that reflected the totality of the circumstances.

The court ordered the respondent be sentenced according to the principles and considerations outlined in the judgment, taking into account his level of involvement, the context of the crime, the delay in charging, and his subsequent efforts towards rehabilitation and cooperation with authorities.

Orders