Regina v Wilson - [1999] NSWSC 1235

CITATION: REGINA v WILSON [1999] NSWSC 1235

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70039/98

HEARING DATE(S): 29 November 1999 (submissions)
3 December 1999 (sentence)

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 1999

PARTIES :

The Crown
Darryl Grant Wilson

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J

COUNSEL : P Power
P Hastings QC

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Neil J O'Connor & Associates

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: R v Hill, 3 A Crim R 397 at 402
R v Morabito, A Crim R 82
R v Alexander, 78 A Crim R 141 at 142
R v withers, (1925) SRNSW 302 at 394

DECISION: See para 64

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
NEWMAN J
FRIDAY, 3 DECEMBER 1999
70039/98 - REGINA v Darryl Grant WILSON

SENTENCE
1    HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Darryl Grant Wilson was indicted before this Court for the murder of his father. To that charge he pleaded not guilty but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown has accepted his plea to manslaughter in full satisfaction of the indictment.
2    For reasons which I will detail later I am of the view that the Crown’s acceptance of the prisoner’s plea was entirely proper.
3 The maximum penalty detailed by s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 for the crime of manslaughter is penal servitude for twenty-five years.
4    The objective facts of the matter were not the subject of any dispute and were given in evidence by Det Sgt Ellicott of North Sydney Police.
5    I should add that I have read the supporting documents which give rise to the facts as given by Det Sgt Ellicott and I find that the Det Sgt’s summation is accurate. Those objective facts are as follows:
6    On Sunday 14 December 1997 at about 10 am the prisoner and his father met at The Spit to change the oil in their boat, “Quality Time”, which was moored in Pearl Bay, Mosman.
7    After the oil had been changed the deceased made comments which the prisoner believed were intended as threats against his girlfriend and he believing his father to be saying that he would be prepared to kill his girlfriend and force the prisoner to return to his wife and children. By this time the prisoner had consumed about four 375 ml bottles of subzero, an alcoholic lemonade as I understand the evidence, and his father had had a 375 ml bottle of light beer. I do not believe that alcohol played any part in the events which followed.
8    The prisoner hit his father causing lacerations to the back of his head, bruising to his right shoulder, a laceration to the bridge of his nose and grazes to the rear of his shoulders. The prisoner saw blood on a plastic bag, a bottle and on the deck. After feeling and listening for the deceased’s heart and breath he concluded, as it turned out falsely, that his father was dead. The prisoner then lifted his father over the side of the boat and threw him into the…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Wilson [1999] NSWSC 1235
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1235
Decision Date: 3 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Wilson, Darryl Grant Wilson was indicted for the murder of his father, Lindsay George Wilson. Darryl pleaded not guilty to murder but admitted to manslaughter. The Crown accepted the plea to manslaughter. The case involved the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division, presided over by Justice Newman. Darryl was sentenced on 3 December 1999.

The legal issues in this case involved whether the Crown's acceptance of Darryl's plea to manslaughter was appropriate and what sentence should be imposed for the crime of manslaughter. The court had to consider the objective facts of the case, Darryl's state of mind, and other mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court found that the Crown's acceptance of Darryl's plea to manslaughter was proper since Darryl's actions constituted a dangerous and unlawful act. However, there was significant provocation from Lindsay which contributed to the fatal events. While provocation is not a defence to manslaughter, it was relevant in considering sentence. The court also found that Darryl was suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time due to a combination of factors including depression and partial dissociation. These factors, along with Lindsay's provocative conduct, provided an explanation for Darryl's actions.

In imposing sentence, the court considered the wide range of permissible punishments for manslaughter and the exceptional circumstances of this case which included the degree of provocation, lack of premeditation, no weapon used, and Darryl's genuine remorse. The court concluded that this was an exceptional case warranting a non-custodial sentence. Darryl was placed on a recognizance in the sum of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for three years.

In summary, the court accepted the Crown's plea to manslaughter and imposed a non-custodial sentence of a recognizance, taking into account the significant provocation, Darryl's abnormality of mind, and other mitigating factors in this tragic case.

Orders