AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
4
Supreme Court 21 March 2003

Regina v Sharon Kaye Yeoman

[2003] NSWSC 194

HomicideDomestic & family violence
MANSLAUGHTER UNLAWFUL AND DANGEROUS ACT PLEA OF GUILTY POWERFUL SUBJECTIVE CASE.

Citation: Regina v Sharon Kaye Yeoman [2003] NSWSC 194
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 March 2003
Judge(s): Buddin J

Background

The offender pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of her de facto husband of 25 years, who died from a single stab wound to the chest at their home in Temora on 16 April 2002. The plea was entered on the basis of an unlawful and dangerous act, rather than any intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The couple had four sons together, including a five-year-old who was in the home at the time.

Both the offender and the deceased had been drinking heavily throughout the day. Expert evidence placed the offender's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the incident at between 0.280 and 0.500 grams per 100 ml, a level associated with severe cognitive and perceptual impairment. The deceased's post-mortem reading was 0.314 grams per 100 ml, a concentration described by expert evidence as approaching or exceeding the generally accepted minimum lethal level for most individuals.

The offender's account to police, given with what the Crown Prosecutor acknowledged as considerable candour, was that she had not intended to kill the deceased but only to hurt him. Her recollection of events was significantly affected by alcohol-induced blackout. She went to bed after the stabbing, apparently unaware that the wound was fatal, and contacted police the following morning after her son discovered the deceased on the floor.

  • Whether the offender's culpability fell at the lower end of the scale for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, given extreme intoxication and the context of chronic domestic violence
  • Whether the sentencing court could impose a non-custodial outcome (a good behaviour bond under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) in a manslaughter case without offending established sentencing principles
  • What weight to give to the offender's powerful subjective case, including a 25-year history of domestic violence, chronic alcoholism, and the impact of a custodial sentence on her young son

Decision

Buddin J accepted that the offender's criminality fell toward the lower end of the culpability range for manslaughter. The stabbing was characterised as a desperate, objectively dangerous gesture without any real intention to harm or kill. The Crown's case rested almost entirely on the offender's own account, which was itself compromised by her extreme intoxication, and the court noted that the Crown had not disputed that establishing all elements of manslaughter may have been difficult had the matter proceeded to trial.

The court gave significant weight to the offender's subjective circumstances. These included a history of serious domestic violence at the hands of the deceased over the course of 25 years, chronic alcoholism that had developed partly in response to that violence, a guilty plea, immediate admissions to police, genuine remorse, and the probable hardship a custodial sentence would impose on the offender's young son. The court drew on comparable cases involving women in similar circumstances, noting that good behaviour bonds had been imposed in analogous manslaughter matters.

Buddin J accepted defence counsel's characterisation of the case as a "non-intentional homicide in circumstances of tragic misadventure." Taking the low level of criminality together with the strength of the subjective case, the court concluded that a non-custodial disposition could be reached without offending the sentencing principles applicable to offences resulting in death. The court described the decision as one requiring anxious consideration, acknowledging the exceptional nature of the outcome.

Orders Made

  • The offender was directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for four years under s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
  • Conditions of the bond required the offender to: appear before the court if called upon during the bond period; be of good behaviour throughout; and accept supervision by the Probation and Parole Service, including attendance at programs, counselling and treatment relating to alcohol

Key Takeaways

  • A non-custodial sentence for manslaughter is not necessarily inconsistent with established sentencing principles where culpability falls toward the lower end of the range and a powerful subjective case exists, including a long history of domestic violence and chronic alcoholism.
  • The sentencing court identified the combination of extreme intoxication, a 25-year backdrop of domestic violence, immediate cooperation with police, a guilty plea, and genuine remorse as collectively forming an unusually strong mitigating picture.
  • Where the Crown's case depends almost entirely on the offender's own account, and that account is significantly affected by alcohol-induced memory impairment, a court may approach the factual basis for the offence with considerable caution.
  • Expert pharmacological evidence about the offender's blood alcohol concentration served a dual purpose: it corroborated the impairment of the offender's memory and raised doubt about whether all elements of manslaughter could have been established at trial.
  • Prior cases involving women who killed partners following domestic violence and who pleaded guilty to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act were treated as relevant comparators supporting the imposition of a good behaviour bond in exceptional circumstances.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 95

Cases:
- R v Bogunovich (1985) 16 A Crim R 456
- R v Cameron (2002) 187 ALR 65
- R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306
- R v Gardner (NSWSC, unreported, 27 March 1992)
- R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
- R v Jans [2000] NSWSC 525
- R v Kennedy [2000] NSWSC 109
- R v McDonald (CCA, unreported, 12 December 1995)
- R v Melrose [2001] NSWSC 847
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Roberts (NSWSC, 31 August 1989)
- R v Runjanjic & Kontinnen (1991) 56 SASR 114
- R v Spencer (NSWSC, unreported, 18 December 1992)
- R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- R v Troja (CCA, unreported, 16 July 1991)
- R v Varagnolo (NSWSC, unreported, 21 March 1996)
- R v Woolsey (NSWSC, unreported, 19 August 1993)