Legal Research
Cases
Stephens v R

Stephens v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 240 16 September 2009

Manslaughter

Excessive Self Defence

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Stephens v R [2009] NSWCCA 240

HEARING DATE(S): 11 August 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 September 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Grove J at 2; RA Hulme J at 35

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Manslaughter - Excessive self defence - Sentence - No error in assessment by sentencing judge

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Markarian v The Queen (2006) 228 CLR 357
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
R v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Trevenna (2004) 149 A Crim R 505
Stewart v R [2009] NSWCCA 5
Ward v R (2006) 166 A Crim R 273

PARTIES: Trevor James STEPHENS - Applicant
REGINA - Respondent/Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/4585

COUNSEL: A Haesler SC with N Mikhael - Applicant
D Arnott SC with F Veltro - Respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission - Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent/Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/4585

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Latham J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 1 July 2008

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: R v Stephens [2008] NSWSC 1429

CCA 2007/4585

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
GROVE J
R A HULME J
16 September 2009

Trevor James STEPHENS v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Grove J.

2 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Latham J in the Supreme Court sitting at East Maitland on 1 July 2008. The applicant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter which plea was accepted by the Crown in discharge of an indictment charging murder. Her Honour sentenced the applicant to a total term of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years. The basis of the reduced culpability of the applicant for the act of killing was, in brief, that he acted in excessive self defence.

3 There was no dispute about the facts which were put before the Court in an agreed statement together with a large bundle of documents which included reports from a psychiatrist, Dr Delaforce, and a psychologist, Mr Taylor.

4 The offence occurred on 12 January 2007. At that time the applicant was aged thirty four years and the victim was aged twenty seven years. They were acquainted and in the latter half of 2006, the victim had moved into a flat at Mayfield and invited the applicant, who was then homeless, to stay there for a time. Some disputation arose between them and the applicant was asked to leave and, although a precise date was not established, certainly by November, he had left the flat.

5 Subsequent to this departure, the victim had told two people (a friend of his and his father) that “a guy” (identifiable as the applicant) had forced his way back into the flat and there had been a fight. He expressed concern about 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 Stephens v R

Details

AGLC: Stephens v R [2009] NSWCCA 240
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 240
Decision Date: 16 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stephens v R, the respondent was convicted of manslaughter by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was composed of Gotterson JA, White JA, and Muir JA. The appellant, who was found guilty of manslaughter, appealed against both his conviction and sentence. The central issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the appellant's claim of excessive self-defence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of self-defence and proportionality in assessing the appellant's actions. The Court noted that the appellant had acted in response to a perceived threat from the victim, but that the force used was excessive in the circumstances. The Court held that the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and his conclusion that the appellant's actions were not justified was not open to question. The Court also found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the appellant's claim of excessive self-defence and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The Court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or his conclusion that the appellant's actions were not justified. The Court further held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no basis for the Court to interfere with the trial judge's sentencing decision. The appeal was therefore dismissed in its entirety.

Orders