Citation: Regina v Leeanne Terese Trevenna [2003] NSWSC 463
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 29 May 2003
Judge(s): Buddin J
Background
The offender was charged with the murder of Terry Robert O'Brien, who was shot in the back of the head at a residential property in Sutherland on 10 July 2000. The offender had been living at the premises with the deceased and her young son. The deceased's body was not discovered until three days after the shooting.
Police investigation revealed that the offender had moved out of the premises in the days before the killing, apparently to avoid the deceased following a period of conflict between them. Evidence obtained through a listening device captured the offender making statements that indicated she had been present at the crime scene and had taken steps to conceal her involvement, including placing the deceased's mobile phone on an ironing board after the shooting and attempting to remove her fingerprints from the scene.
A jury was empanelled to hear a murder trial. After two days of evidence, and following discussions between counsel, the offender was re-arraigned. She pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment, and Buddin J discharged the jury pursuant to section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence, where a firearm was used and the killing occurred in a domestic setting?
- What discount, if any, was warranted for the guilty plea entered after the trial had already commenced?
- How should the offender's subjective circumstances, including evidence of a history of domestic violence and mental health considerations, be weighed against the objective gravity of the offence?
Decision
Buddin J identified this as a serious instance of manslaughter. The use of a firearm to inflict a fatal gunshot wound to the back of the deceased's head was treated as a significant aggravating feature, as was the delay in reporting the death and the active steps taken to conceal involvement.
The court acknowledged the offender's subjective circumstances, including evidence of a difficult domestic relationship with the deceased involving violence, as well as relevant mental health and personal history material. These factors were weighed against the gravity of the offence but did not displace the need for a substantial custodial term.
On the question of the guilty plea, the court noted that the plea was entered after the trial had already commenced and after two days of evidence had been heard. This limited the utilitarian value of the plea. The discount applied was accordingly less than would have been available for an early guilty plea.
Buddin J reviewed comparable manslaughter sentences, including cases involving firearms and domestic circumstances, and concluded that a term broadly consistent with those cases was appropriate. The court imposed a total sentence of seven and a half years with a non-parole period of four and a half years.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment for manslaughter, commencing 7 December 2000 and expiring 6 June 2008.
- A non-parole period of four and a half years was set, commencing 7 December 2000.
- The earliest eligible parole date was recorded as 6 June 2005.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea entered after two days of trial attracted a reduced sentencing discount compared to what would have been available for an early plea, reflecting the limited utilitarian value of the plea at that stage.
- Where manslaughter is committed using a firearm, the objective gravity of the offence will weigh heavily in the sentencing exercise and necessitates a substantial custodial sentence, notwithstanding favourable subjective circumstances.
- Evidence of a history of domestic violence and the mental health of an offender can be considered in mitigation, but such factors do not override the need for a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the loss of human life.
- Comparative sentencing cases are a relevant guide, but the Supreme Court confirmed that each manslaughter case must ultimately be assessed on its own particular facts.
- Under section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a sentencing court is required to give effect to multiple sentencing purposes, including deterrence and denunciation, alongside any mitigating factors personal to the offender.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Cases:
- R v Cameron (2002) 187 ALR 65
- R v Cioban [2002] NSWSC 972
- R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
- R v McDonald (CCA, unreported, 12 December 1995)
- R v Nguyen [2002] NSWSC 536
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
- R v Troja (CCA, unreported, 16 July 1991)