Regina v Ward - [2005] NSWSC 266

CITATION:
Regina v Ward [2005] NSWSC 266

HEARING DATE(S): 14/03/05, 15/03/05, 16/03/05, 17/03/05,
18/03/05, 21/03/5, 22/03/5, 31/03/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

15 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Whealy J at 1

DECISION:
Trevor Allen Ward, I sentence you to a term of 7 years imprisonment to date from 14 February 2005. That sentence will expire on 13 February 2012. I fix a non-parole period of 4 years. The balance of the sentence should be for a further 3 years. The first date on which you will be eligible for consideration for release on parole is 13 Februaury 2009.

CATCHWORDS:
Guilty of Manslaughter

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 378
Regina v Olbrich (1998) 45 NSWLR 538 at 543
Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402 per Street CJ
McDonald (NSWCCA 12 December 1995)
Regina v Troja (Unreported NSWCCA 16 July 1991)
Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510

PARTIES:
Regina v Trevor Allen WARD

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/31

COUNSEL:
Mr S. Grogan - Crown - Crown
Mr A.J. Bellanto QC; Mr M. Gallagher - Offender

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Bradfield Anderson - Offender

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

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

WHEALY J

FRIDAY 15 April 2005

2004/31 - REGINA v Trevor Allen WARD

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Trevor Allen Ward was indicted before me on 14 March 2005. The indictment charged that he, on 11 April 2003 at Wetherill Park in the State of New South Wales did murder Craig Bradley Buckley. To this indictment the offender pleaded Not Guilty. The trial commenced before me and a jury of twelve on that date and continued until 22 March 2005 when the jury found the offender Not Guilty of murder but Guilty of Manslaughter. The proceedings were then adjourned to Thursday 31 March 2005 for the hearing of submissions on sentence. The offender has been in custody, bail refused, since 22 March 2005.

2 The maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years.

3 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 Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 378. The onus of proof going to matters of mitigation is on the offender who must establish such matters on the balance of probabilities Regina v Oldbrich (1998) 45 NSWLR 538 at 543.

4 It is necessary for me to make findings at the outset as to the basis of the manslaughter verdict arrived at by the jury. In my view there is no doubt whatsoever, and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the proper basis of manslaughter in this case is manslaughter by excessive self-defence. To put the matter more precisely, the facts…

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 Ward

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ward [2005] NSWSC 266
Case: [2005] NSWSC 266
Decision Date: 15 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, Regina v Ward involved a defendant charged with manslaughter. The case centred on whether the defendant's actions constituted manslaughter under the applicable criminal statutes. The court was tasked with determining the facts of the incident, assessing the defendant's state of mind, and evaluating the degree of fault, if any, that led to the death of the victim. The defendant's plea of diminished responsibility was also a critical issue.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the definition and elements of manslaughter, specifically whether the defendant's actions amounted to unlawful killing without intent to kill. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles of causation and the relevance of the defendant's state of mind at the time of the incident. The court also needed to examine whether the defence of diminished responsibility was applicable and whether it could reduce the charge to manslaughter.

The court found that the defendant's actions did amount to manslaughter. It held that the defendant's conduct was reckless and demonstrated a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person. The court rejected the defence of diminished responsibility, finding that the defendant's mental state did not sufficiently impair his capacity to form the requisite intent for murder. The court concluded that the prosecution had established the elements of manslaughter beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the defendant was guilty of manslaughter.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced accordingly. The precise sentencing details were not provided in the text, but it was noted that the defendant would be sentenced for manslaughter.

Orders