Legal Research
Cases
Sheiles v The Queen

Sheiles v The Queen

Case [2018] NSWCCA 285 7 December 2018

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Sheiles v R [2018] NSWCCA 285
Hearing dates: 28 November 2018
Decision date: 07 December 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Bellew J at [46];
Campbell J at [47]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – applicant found guilty of manslaughter after trial – applicant stabbed deceased with a large knife after being sexually assaulted by him – intention of applicant to inflict grievous bodily harm not to kill – applicant aware that deceased had a terminally ill wife and a young daughter – whether aggravating factor that applicant’s action deprived ill wife of her carer and in due course would make the daughter an orphan – whether principle in R v Previtera applies – sentence appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s 3A(g), 21A(2)(g), 21A(4), 21A(5)
Cases Cited: Josefski v R [2010] NSWCCA 41; 217 A Crim R 183
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Aytugrul [2009] NSWSC 275
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Dang [1999] NSWCCA 42
R v Droudis (No 16) [2017] NSWSC 20
R v Gilson (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1670
R v Lewis [2001] NSWCCA 448
R v Naden [2013] NSWSC 759
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Ronald Edward Medich (No 43) [2018] NSWSC 886
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
SBF v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 23; 198 A Crim R 219
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Trudy Jane Sheiles (aka Gilson) – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
C Smith SC – Applicant
E Balodis – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2014/344391
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2017] NSWSC 1670

Date of Decision:

1 December 2017

Before:

Button J

File Number(s):

2014/344391

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

The applicant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against the sentence imposed on her by Button J in the Supreme Court at Sydney on 1 December 2017 for the offence of manslaughter.
Following a trial commencing 26 June 2017, the applicant was found not guilty of murder but guilty to the alternate offence of manslaughter by a majority verdict on 25 July 2017. That offence which is contrary to s 19(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.
The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years, commencing 21 November 2014 and concluding 20 November 2022, with a non-parole period of 5 years which is due to expire on 20 November 2019.
The applicant…

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 Sheiles v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sheiles v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 285
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 285
Decision Date: 07 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in Sheiles v The Queen was convicted of manslaughter following a trial in which it was determined that he had stabbed the deceased with a large knife after being sexually assaulted by him. The appellant's intention was to inflict grievous bodily harm rather than to kill, and he was aware of the deceased's family circumstances, including that the deceased had a terminally ill wife and a young daughter. The appellant appealed the sentence imposed on him, arguing that the trial judge had improperly considered the impact of his actions on the deceased's family as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge's consideration of the impact of the appellant's actions on the deceased's family as an aggravating factor was appropriate.

The court held that the principle in R v Previtera, which states that the court should not consider the personal characteristics of the victim as an aggravating factor in sentencing, did not preclude the court from considering the impact of the appellant's actions on the deceased's family as an aggravating factor. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to consider the impact of the appellant's actions on the deceased's family as an aggravating factor because it was relevant to the appellant's culpability and the circumstances of the offence. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in considering the impact of the appellant's actions on the deceased's family as an aggravating factor, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the trial judge had not erred in considering the impact of the appellant's actions on the deceased's family as an aggravating factor. The court held that the appellant's appeal against sentence was without merit, and that the sentence imposed was just and appropriate in all the circumstances.

Orders