Stephenson v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 266

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: STEPHENSON v R [2008] NSWCCA 266

HEARING DATE(S): 13/11/08

JUDGMENT OF: Bell JA at 1; Blanch J at 36; Hall J at 37

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 13 November 2008

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal
2. Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCE manslaughter - unlawful and dangerous act - domestic argument - punches to head

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 328 CLR 357
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v O'Hare [2003] NSWSC 652
R v Risteski [1999] NSWSC 1248

PARTIES: Darren Robert Stephenson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/00004279

COUNSEL: C Steirn SC (Applicant)
D Arnott SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Andrew O'Brien (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/2881

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hidden J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 29/6/07

2006/4279005

BELL JA
BLANCH J
HALL J
Thursday 13 November 2008

Darren Robert STEPHENSON v R

Judgment

1 BELL JA: Darren Robert Stephenson pleaded guilty on 2 February 2007 before Justice Hidden to the manslaughter of his partner Jody Zaric on 25 February 2006. His plea was accepted by the Crown in discharge of an indictment for murder.

2 He was sentenced by Hidden J on 29 June 2007 to a non-parole period of three and a half years commencing on 25 February 2006 and expiring on 24 August 2009. A balance of term of two years and six months commencing on 25 August 2009, and expiring on 24 February 2012 was imposed.

3 By notice of appeal dated 8 August 2008, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of this sentence. The application was filed out of time and the applicant requires an extension of time in which to bring it. The grounds for the extension are set out in the document filed in support of the application by Mr Byrne SC. In light of the contents of that document there is no opposition to the extension sought, and it is appropriate that it be granted.

4 Hidden J set out the facts upon which the applicant was to be sentenced as follows:

The victim and the offender had been in an intimate relationship for approximately eight years prior to her death. The victim would spend some of her time living with the offender and the remainder of her time living with her mother. The relationship was a volatile one.

On Friday 24 February 2006 the victim won $10,000 in a competition run by a radio station.

From…

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 Stephenson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stephenson v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 266
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 266
Decision Date: 13 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stephenson v The Queen involved an appeal against a sentence imposed for manslaughter following a domestic dispute. The appellant, who had been found guilty of manslaughter, challenged the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial court. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which reviewed the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the nature of the unlawful and dangerous act committed by the appellant, which resulted in the death of the victim during a heated argument.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, particularly focusing on the appellant's conduct during the altercation. The primary concern was whether the sentence adequately reflected the culpability and the dangerousness of the act, which involved punching the victim in the head. The court also examined the appellant's background, including any mitigating factors, and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family. The decision required a careful balance between the need to deter such acts and the principles of proportionality and justice in sentencing.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal concluded that the original sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentence did not disproportionately punish the appellant but rather reflected the gravity of the crime committed. The court emphasised that while the appellant's actions were part of a domestic dispute, the act of punching the victim in the head was inherently dangerous and led to the victim's death. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court highlighted that the sentence served as a necessary deterrent and maintained public confidence in the justice system.

Orders