Regina v Willoughby

CITATION: REGINA v. WILLOUGHBY [2001] NSWSC 1015

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70082 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 25/9/01; 15/10/01 - 18/10/01; 9/11/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 November 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
WILLOUGHBY, Leyton Terence Matthew

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Miller
Offender: W. Terracini SC./G. Newton

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Offender: Legal Aid Commission

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - manslaughter - plea of guilty - excessive response to irrationally perceived threat of theft - no intent to cause other than transient injury - subjective circumstances.

LEGISLATION CITED: N/A

CASES CITED: Previtera (1998) 94 A. Crim. R. 76
Thompson & Houlton (2000) 115 A. Crim. R. 104

DECISION: Imprisonment for six years and nine months with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. That sentence is to date from 18 October 2001. The earliest date on which the offender is eligible for release on parole is 17 July 2005.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70082 of 1999

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 9 NOVEMBER 2001

REGINA v. LEYTON TERENCE MATTHEW WILLOUGHBY

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Leyton Terence Willoughby, has pleaded guilty before me to the manslaughter of Donald Francis Lewis. That plea was entered following a voir dire in which evidence was given on the question of whether or not his de facto spouse should be compelled to give evidence in the Crown case.

2 During that voir dire, I was able to form an assessment of his spouse and of her family circumstances as they related to the offender. Suffice it to say that what I then observed and heard gives some considerable support to some observations that were tendered in evidence before me by way of a report and the oral evidence of Mr. Kesby-Smith, clinical psychologist, and in particular as concerning the pressures on the offender in and about the time at which he committed his crime.

3 An agreed statement of facts has been tendered. That statement of facts sets out the observations, such as they were, of various witnesses as to what occurred. It does not express those inevitable conclusions that had to follow if one were to be concerned, as I must be, to find the facts fully.

4 The offender killed his victim more or less outside the flat in which he lived in Rochester Street, Botany, with the young woman who was his de facto. The deceased had been chased from immediately outside those premises into and along Rochester Street to a point at which he met his death. There was evidence available in the trial, and which is agreed in the statement of facts, that at the point at which he was observed by a witness, Mr. Smith, the deceased was sitting on the roadway with his hands held in a defensive manner when the offender punched him several times saying as he did so, "why did you fucking steal from me?". The deceased…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Willoughby involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had killed another individual in what was described as an excessive response to a perceived threat of theft, which was later determined to be irrational. The defendant claimed that at the time of the incident, they believed their life was in danger, although it was clear that the intent was to cause only transient injury, not death.

The central legal issue was whether the defendant's perception of an immediate threat, despite its irrationality, could be taken into account when determining the sentence. The court needed to balance the defendant's subjective perception of the circumstances with the objective gravity of the crime committed. It was also necessary to consider the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing.

The court found that while the defendant's perception of a threat was subjective, the excessive nature of the response and the resulting death meant that the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the crime. However, the court acknowledged the defendant's lack of intent to cause death and the fact that the threat was perceived irrationally. The sentence imposed was one of imprisonment with a focus on rehabilitation and the prevention of future offending. The court concluded that the sentence should deter others from responding excessively to perceived threats, while also providing the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	REGINA v. WILLOUGHBY [2001] NSWSC 1015
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Criminal
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC No. 70082 of 1999
HEARING DATE(S):	25/9/01; 15/10/01 - 18/10/01; 9/11/01
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 November 2001
PARTIES :	REGINA v. WILLOUGHBY, Leyton Terence Matthew
JUDGMENT OF:	Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL :	Crown: P. Miller Offender: W. Terracini SC./G. Newton
SOLICITORS:	Crown: S.E. O'Connor Offender: Legal Aid Commission
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - sentence - manslaughter - plea of guilty - excessive response to irrationally perceived threat of theft - no intent to cause other than transient injury - subjective circumstances.
LEGISLATION CITED:	N/A
CASES CITED:	Previtera (1998) 94 A. Crim. R. 76 Thompson & Houlton (2000) 115 A. Crim. R. 104
DECISION:	Imprisonment for six years and nine months with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. That sentence is to date from 18 October 2001. The earliest date on which the offender is eligible for release on parole is 17 July 2005.