Regina v Towers - [2000] NSWSC 420

CITATION: Regina v Towers [2000] NSWSC 420

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70035/98

HEARING DATE(S): 01/05/2000-03/05/2000; 16/05/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Kevin Walter Towers

JUDGMENT OF: Michael Grove J at 1

COUNSEL : P. Barnett (Crown)
J. Booth (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor, Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Services (Accused)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Malicious Wounding - Original Charge of Murder Abandoned - Options

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION: Good Behaviour Bond in Lieu of Sentence

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

MICHAEL GROVE J

Thursday 18 May 2000

70035/98 REGINA v KEVIN WALTER TOWERS

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR : Kevin Walter Towers appears for sentence on a count of malicious wounding. To wound is to cause an injury involving the cutting of the interior layer of the skin. Provided the wound is of that quality, the offence can lie and it is not requisite that there be any consequence of prescribed or particular seriousness. The offence is indictable and the Crimes Act specifies a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, however it is included in the schedule of matters which are to be dealt with summarily unless either the prosecutor or the person charged elects otherwise. If there is no such election, a person convicted faces sentence by a magistrate whose jurisdiction is limited (except in circumstances not applicable here) to imposing no more than two years imprisonment.

2 There is some unusual procedural background in this case and I should mention aspects of it. On 18 January 1998 the prisoner was arrested and charged with the murder of Neville Stuart (Dickie) Edwards. He was committed to stand trial on that charge and a bill of indictment was found accordingly. The trial was scheduled to commence before a jury to be empanelled on Monday 1st May instant. Certain information was supplied to the prosecution towards the end of the preceding week and over the weekend and, in consequence, an indictment was presented containing counts charging murder and, alternatively, malicious wounding. The prisoner pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to malicious wounding and the Crown accepted that plea in discharge of the indictment including an express understanding that the plea of not guilty to murder included a plea of not guilty to manslaughter. Subject to there being evidence to support the plea of guilty to malicious wounding, it is mandatory to deal with the matter on that basis.

3 It is important therefore to make two observations. First, the conviction in respect of which the prisoner appears for sentence does not involve any assertion of his culpability for the death of Mr Edwards. Second, treating the charge of malicious wounding in isolation as it now must be, it is reasonable to infer and I do infer, that if the bill had not been found for the more serious charge, consideration would have been given to whether the charge should not have been left to be dealt with…

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 Towers

Details

AGLC: Regina v Towers [2000] NSWSC 420
Case: [2000] NSWSC 420
Decision Date: 18 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Towers involved a dispute over the sentencing of the defendant, who was found guilty of malicious wounding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant had originally been charged with murder but this charge was later abandoned, resulting in the need to determine an appropriate sentence for the malicious wounding charge.

The court was required to consider several legal issues, including the severity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court also had to weigh the sentencing options available to it, including imprisonment and community-based orders. In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court noted the seriousness of the offence, which involved the defendant causing significant harm to the victim. The court also considered the defendant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for assault and theft. However, the court found that the defendant had shown remorse for his actions and had cooperated with authorities since his arrest. Based on these factors, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, but that a community-based order could also be effective in achieving the goals of punishment and rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided on a sentence of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years.

The court made final orders accordingly, including that the defendant be detained in custody until the expiration of the non-parole period, and that he be subject to supervision and other conditions upon his release. The court also ordered that the defendant be assessed for rehabilitation programs and other support services to assist in his reintegration into the community.

Orders