AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 19 March 2024

R v Steele

[2024] NSWSC 214

HomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIME SENTENCE MANSLAUGHTER EXCESSIVE SELF DEFENCE OFFENDING AROSE DURING FAMILY ARGUMENT

Citation: R v Steele [2024] NSWSC 214
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 19 March 2024
Judge: Davies J

Background

On 28 April 2022, the evening after the death of his former partner from cancer, the offender stabbed his adult son in the neck with a kitchen knife during a family argument at their shared home in South West Rocks. The stab wound perforated the right internal jugular vein and carotid artery, and the son died shortly after. The offender, his son, and his daughter had been out to dinner that evening and had consumed a substantial amount of alcohol together.

The offender was originally charged with murder. Before committal, he offered to plead guilty to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, but the Crown rejected that offer. Shortly before trial, the offender offered to plead guilty to manslaughter by excessive self-defence, and the Crown accepted. The offender was 76 years old at sentencing and was in remission from leukaemia.

The agreed facts established that the offender armed himself with the knife after perceiving his son was becoming aggressive, then stabbed him once in the neck as the son turned and approached him quickly. The offender could not recall the precise moment of inflicting the wound, but accepted responsibility throughout. He had no prior criminal record and all evidence described him as a gentle, non-violent person.

  • What was the appropriate level of objective seriousness for manslaughter by excessive self-defence in these circumstances?
  • What weight should be given to the offender's age, health, remorse, and character in mitigation?
  • What guilty plea discount applied under s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), given the offender had originally offered to plead guilty to a different basis of manslaughter?
  • What non-parole period ratio was appropriate given the offender's age and health?

Decision

Davies J assessed the offence as falling just below the mid-range of objective seriousness, rejecting the offender's submission that it fell in the lower range. The deceased was unarmed when he approached, and stabbing him in the neck with a knife exceeding 30 centimetres was a gross overreaction to a perceived threat of being pushed or knocked over. The judge noted there had been no need to arm himself with a knife at all, and that other options were available. Mitigating the objective gravity somewhat were the facts that only a single stab was inflicted and the offending was relatively impulsive rather than planned.

On subjective matters, Davies J noted the offender's advanced age, remission from leukaemia, complete absence of prior offending, strong character evidence from 12 references, deep remorse, and the absence of any risk of reoffending. Three psychological and psychiatric reports disclosed no mental health concerns. The combined effect of acute grief, alcohol, and an escalating argument was acknowledged as relevant context, though self-induced intoxication could not operate as a mitigating factor.

On the guilty plea discount, Davies J considered the operation of s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The earlier offer had been to plead guilty to manslaughter as an offence, and the judge held that s 25E focuses on the "offence" charged rather than the particular legal basis for guilt. Accordingly, the offender was entitled to a 25% discount, reducing the head sentence from 9 years to 6 years and 9 months.

The statutory requirement that the non-parole period be at least half the head sentence was significantly varied downward, with the court setting a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months against a head sentence of 6 years and 9 months. This variation reflected the offender's age and health conditions, and the judgment that standard ratios would operate with particular harshness in his circumstances.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of the manslaughter of David Steele.
  • Sentenced to a total term of 6 years and 9 months imprisonment.
  • Non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, commencing 28 April 2022 and expiring 27 October 2025.
  • Balance of term of 3 years and 3 months, expiring 27 January 2029.
  • First eligible for parole on 27 October 2025.
  • The offence was noted as a serious violence offence for the purposes of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW).

Key Takeaways

  • Under s 25E of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, the guilty plea discount attaches to the "offence" charged, not its legal basis. An earlier offer to plead to manslaughter on one basis (unlawful and dangerous act) supported the full discount when the Crown later accepted a plea to manslaughter on a different basis (excessive self-defence).

  • Manslaughter by excessive self-defence involving a single stab wound with an improvised kitchen knife, in an impulsive domestic context, was assessed as just below the mid-range of objective seriousness where the deceased was unarmed and the force used was grossly disproportionate.

  • A significant departure from the standard non-parole period ratio is available where an offender's advanced age and serious health conditions would make the statutory minimum operate with particular harshness. Here, the court set a non-parole period of roughly 52% of the head sentence rather than the statutory minimum of 50%, but the substantive departure was in the construction of the overall sentence.

  • The use of a weapon as an aggravating factor under s 21A(2)(c) carries reduced weight where that weapon was entirely integral to the offence itself, rather than an additional feature of the criminality.

  • Strong character evidence, complete absence of prior offending, genuine remorse, and negligible risk of reoffending are all significant mitigating factors in a manslaughter sentence, even where the offending involved the intentional infliction of very serious harm.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 25E, 44
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases:
- Black v R (2022) 107 NSWLR 225; [2022] NSWCCA 17
- Lupton v R [2024] NSWCCA 29
- R v Bloodsworth; R v Errington (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 79
- R v Charters [2020] NSWSC 842
- R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
- R v Van Oosterum [2004] NSWSC 532
- R v Walcott [2019] NSWSC 443