AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
3
Supreme Court 10 February 2023

R v Stanley (No. 2)

[2023] NSWSC 74

Assault & violenceHomicide
SENTENCING REMARKS ON SENTENCE MANSLAUGHTER EXCESSIVE SELF DEFENCE EARLY PLEA OF GUILTY TO MANSLAUGHTER VULNERABLE IN CUSTODY

Citation: R v Stanley (No. 2) [2023] NSWSC 74
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 10 February 2023
Judge: Lonergan J

Background

The offender, a young man, was charged with the murder of Bradley Stanley following a fatal stabbing on 3 January 2021 in Wellington, New South Wales. The offender and the deceased were related. The incident arose from a prolonged series of confrontations, threats exchanged via Snapchat, and escalating hostility between two groups over several hours during the early morning.

Following a night of heavy drinking at a party, a group including the deceased and his brothers travelled to the offender's home after having been told the offender wanted to fight. Kayne called the offender out to the front of his house at the group's request. The offender ran out of his house wielding a kitchen knife and waved it wildly near the group. Bradley punched the offender, and the offender stabbed Bradley twice, once to the left side of the neck and once to the right side of the abdominal cavity. No one near Bradley was armed at that moment. Bradley died from his injuries.

The offender was arraigned before a jury on a murder charge but pleaded not guilty to murder and guilty to manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence. After two weeks of Crown evidence, the Crown accepted that plea. The factual basis for the plea was that the offender genuinely believed his conduct was necessary to defend himself, but that his conduct was not reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. These remarks on sentence address the appropriate penalty for that offence.

  • What was the objective seriousness of the manslaughter, having regard to the circumstances of the stabbing and the excessive self-defence basis?
  • What subjective factors applied, including the offender's age, background, history of disadvantage, and vulnerability in custody?
  • Whether the principles from Bugmy v The Queen (2013) applied given the offender's background of deprivation and trauma?
  • What discount was appropriate for the guilty plea, and at what point the plea could properly be treated as "early"?
  • Whether special circumstances existed justifying a non-parole period that departed from the standard one-third ratio?
  • What commencement date was appropriate for the sentence, given time already spent in custody?

Decision

Lonergan J assessed the objective seriousness of the offence as falling in the low to mid range for manslaughter. The stabbing was serious and caused death. However, the court accepted that the offender was confronted by a group who had come to his home specifically to fight him, that threats had been made throughout the night, that the deceased punched the offender before the stabbing occurred, and that the offender had a genuine but unreasonable belief in the need to defend himself. These features distinguished the case from more serious instances of manslaughter.

On subjective factors, the court placed significant weight on the offender's youth, his background of profound disadvantage and exposure to family violence, and his lack of prior serious offending. The Bugmy principles were engaged, recognising that the moral culpability of an offender who has grown up in an environment of deprivation and dysfunction may be reduced accordingly, and that this consideration does not diminish with the seriousness of an offence. The court also accepted that the offender demonstrated genuine remorse and had good prospects of rehabilitation.

The court found the plea of guilty to manslaughter qualified as an early plea, notwithstanding the procedural history involving two jury empanelments and the running of the Crown case. The offender had consistently maintained his plea position from arraignment. A 25% discount for the guilty plea was applied to the starting point of 8 years, reducing the head sentence to 6 years.

Special circumstances were established, primarily because of the offender's youth, his need for rehabilitation, and his vulnerability in custody. These factors justified a non-parole period that was proportionally lower than the standard one-third ratio, set at 3 years and 6 months.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for manslaughter for a term of 6 years, commencing 3 January 2021 and expiring 2 January 2027.
  • A non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months was set, commencing 3 January 2021 and expiring 2 July 2024.
  • The offender became eligible for release on parole on 2 July 2024.
  • The court noted the operation of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), which may permit an application for continued supervision or detention at the end of the sentence.

Key Takeaways

  • Excessive self-defence manslaughter, where the offender held a genuine but unreasonable belief in the need for defensive action, can attract a reduced assessment of objective seriousness when the offender was confronted at their own home by a group intending to fight them.
  • Bugmy principles apply at sentencing to account for an offender's background of deprivation and exposure to violence during childhood, reducing moral culpability regardless of the gravity of the offence.
  • A consistent plea position maintained from first arraignment may qualify as an early guilty plea for the purpose of the 25% discount, even where the Crown did not accept the plea until after its own case closed at a second trial.
  • Special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard non-parole period ratio can be established by the combination of an offender's youth, vulnerability in custody, and rehabilitation prospects.
  • Where an offender has already served time in custody as a result of the same offending, the sentencing court may backdate the sentence to the date of arrest without also accumulating the new sentence on top of any earlier revocation period.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
- R v Thompson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
- Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
- DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
- Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
- JM v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 55; [2012] NSWCCA 83
- Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
- Fuller v R [2022] NSWCCA 203
- Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
- R v Tsingolas [2022] NSWDC 34