Regina v Waterman - [2002] NSWSC 1236

CITATION: Regina v Waterman [2002] NSWSC 1236

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70212/01

HEARING DATE(S): 02/05/02; 03/05/02; 06/05/02; 07/05/02; 08/05/02; 09/05/02; 13/05/02; 14/05/02; 15/05/02; 16/05/02; 17/05/02; 20/05/02; 21/05/02; 22/05/02; 20/09/02; 25/10/02; 18/12/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 18 December 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Wesley Patric Waterman

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL : B Smith - Crown
P Hamill - Offender

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Brenda Duchen - Offender

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act.

DECISION: See para 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

18 December, 2002

70212/01 – REGINA v Wesley Patric WATERMAN
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Wesley Patric Waterman, was tried upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Anthony Alexander Costello at Woolloomooloo on 11 November, 2000. The jury found him guilty of manslaughter. He committed the offence in the company of a co-offender, Jerome William Leyman. Mr Leyman was also charged with murder, but his plea of guilty to manslaughter was accepted by the Crown prosecutor in discharge of that indictment.

Facts

2 At the relevant time the offender was living with his parents in Charles Street, Woolloomooloo. Mr Leyman lived nearby in Forbes Street. During the evening of Friday, 10 November, 2000 a number of homeless men, including the deceased, who was forty one years old, took up positions to sleep for the night on the steps of a building roughly opposite Mr Leyman’s house.

3 Mr Leyman was at home, drinking with friends. In the small hours of the following morning, Saturday, 11 November, 2000, people in the house were talking loudly and disturbing the sleep of the homeless men outside. Some of those men protested, demanding that the noise cease or they would call the police. Mr Leyman came out of his home, carrying a broomstick. He prodded a number of the men with the stick, including the deceased, and ordered them to leave the area. The deceased said that he was not leaving. Mr Leyman attempted to strike him with the stick, but the deceased seized it from him and struck him on the nose, causing it to bleed.

4 Mr Leyman ran back to his home. A number of the homeless men stood outside his house, swearing at him and demanding that he come outside, but after a while they settled down. He rang the offender and told him what had happened.

5 The offender left his home in Charles Street, armed with a knife, and ran to where the men were. He demanded to know who had assaulted his friend. He then went to Mr Leyman’s home, and the two of them emerged and walked towards the men. Mr Leyman pointed out the deceased as the man who had struck him.

6 There is a conflict in the evidence about what then occurred. What is clear is that the deceased sustained one stab wound to the chest, which was fatal. What is not clear is exactly how…

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 Waterman

Details

AGLC: Regina v Waterman [2002] NSWSC 1236
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1236
Decision Date: 18 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Waterman, the defendant, Waterman, stood trial in the Supreme Court of Queensland for the manslaughter of a person during the course of an unlawful and dangerous act. The incident arose from a confrontation between Waterman and the deceased, during which Waterman used a firearm. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Waterman, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the principles of sentencing for manslaughter committed in the course of an unlawful and dangerous act, and the factors that should be considered when determining the severity of the sentence. The court needed to balance the culpability of the offender, the nature of the unlawful act, and the circumstances surrounding the incident to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the broader community.

The court, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It noted that Waterman's actions were premeditated and involved the use of a dangerous weapon, significantly elevating the risk of harm. The court also considered the remorse expressed by Waterman and his otherwise good character. After weighing these factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary, and sentenced Waterman to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the principle of proportionality and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court ordered that Waterman be remanded in custody pending the completion of the necessary arrangements for his transfer to a correctional facility. The sentence reflects the court's determination that the offence warranted a significant punitive response, while also recognising the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders