Citation: R v Ari Hayden Bullock [2005] NSWSC 1071
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 21 October 2005
Judge(s): Buddin J
Background
The offender was charged with the murder of a man at Lakemba in the early hours of 11 July 2004. The deceased had accused the offender of hitting him with a pool cue, an accusation the offender denied and which no other witness corroborated. The deceased then punched the offender several times in the face, causing a broken nose, a swollen eye and facial bleeding.
After the assault, the offender walked to his nearby father's unit and collected two kitchen knives. He returned to where the deceased was standing approximately 10 to 15 minutes later, approached him, and stabbed him multiple times in the chest, neck and back. The deceased died at the scene from multiple stab wounds. The offender remained nearby, called for help, and told police "I did it" when they arrived.
The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder. The Crown did not accept the manslaughter plea and proceeded to trial. The jury convicted the offender of manslaughter, finding that the Crown had not disproved the partial defence of provocation to the requisite standard.
Legal Issues
- What sentence is appropriate for manslaughter where the jury found the offender was acting under provocation?
- How should the degree of provocation, the offender's loss of self-control, and the objective gravity of the offending be weighed in sentencing?
- What weight should be given to mitigating factors, including the offender's age, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and assistance to authorities?
- Whether "special circumstances" existed under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to justify a non-parole period representing more than the standard proportion of the overall sentence.
Decision
Buddin J applied the three-part framework from R v Alexander (1994) to assess the role of provocation in sentencing: the degree of provocation offered, the offender's capacity for self-control, and the way in which the offender retaliated. His Honour acknowledged that the offender had been genuinely assaulted and humiliated, but found the response disproportionate and unwarranted. The offender had deliberately selected two knives, returned to the scene, and inflicted six stab wounds with significant force.
The interval between the provocation and the attack was an important consideration. The offender had time to walk to another location, select weapons, and return, which reduced the weight to be given to provocation as a mitigating factor. His Honour noted the threat made to the deceased ("You're going to die tonight") before the offender collected the knives.
On the mitigating side, Buddin J gave weight to the offender's youth, his immediate remorse at the scene and in the police interview, his full admissions to police, his good prospects of rehabilitation, and his lack of prior relevant criminal history. His Honour also found that the offender's alcohol and drug dependency required addressing and that an extended parole supervision period was appropriate.
His Honour found special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, given that this was the offender's first period of custody and that he would require extended supervision on release to address his substance dependency. This justified setting the non-parole period at a proportion of the head sentence that departed from the standard one-third ratio.
Orders Made
- Non-parole period of 5 years, commencing 11 July 2004.
- Overall sentence of 8 years, commencing 11 July 2004 and expiring 10 July 2012.
- The offender became eligible for parole on 10 July 2009.
Key Takeaways
- Where a jury returns a manslaughter verdict on the basis of provocation, the sentencing court must assess the degree of provocation, the offender's capacity for self-control, and the nature of the retaliation, drawing on the R v Alexander framework.
- A deliberate interval between the provoking conduct and the fatal attack, during which the offender collected weapons and returned to the scene, significantly limits the mitigating weight of provocation at sentencing.
- There is no established sentencing tariff for manslaughter in New South Wales; comparable cases and Judicial Commission statistics may assist, but are subject to inherent limitations given the variety of circumstances in which manslaughter is committed.
- Special circumstances under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 can be established where an offender is serving their first custodial sentence and requires extended post-release supervision, particularly to address substance dependency.
- Genuine remorse demonstrated at the scene, full cooperation with police, and good rehabilitation prospects remained relevant mitigating factors even where the objective gravity of the offending was high.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 44(2)
Cases
- Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
- R v Alexander (1994) 78 A Crim R 141
- R v Blacklidge (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
- R v Cardoso (2003) 137 A Crim R 535
- R v Hill (1980) 3 A Crim R 397
- R v McDonald (CCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
- R v See [2001] NSWSC 776
- R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
- R v Troja (CCA, 16 July 1991, unreported)
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465