• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

1. On 19 August 2021, Laura Crnevic (the victim), died after the offender, Christopher Weaver, injected her with heroin at her request. At the time of her death, the victim had a number of serious medical conditions, which had required her to undergo transplantation of her pancreas and kidney. The offender was fully aware of the victim’s medical vulnerabilities.

2. The offender has pleaded guilty to manslaughter contrary to s 15(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (CAN7441/2023) and to administering a declared substance to another person without authorisation contrary to s 37(1) of the Medicines, Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act 2008 (ACT) (CAN7442/2023).

3. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 20 years. The maximum penalty for administering a declared substance to another person without authorisation is $16,000, imprisonment for one year, or both.

4. The offender now comes before me for sentence in respect of both offences.

Background

The offence

5. The offender had been in a relationship with the victim for approximately seven years prior to her death. They lived together in an apartment in Florey in the Australian Capital Territory.

6. In August 2021, the victim was 41 years old. She had a complex prior medical history, which included type one diabetes with advanced diabetic nephropathy, for which she had received kidney and pancreas transplants. These transplantations had led to further complications when her body rejected the new organs. The victim also had peripheral vascular disease and coronary artery disease. The victim had developed diabetic ulcers on her feet and several of her toes had been required to be amputated. She took extensive medication for several serious medical conditions. The offender was aware of the victim’s health issues.

7. The victim regularly used cannabis at the time she met the offender. About one to two years prior to her death, the victim and the offender were introduced to heroin. They subsequently both became regular uses.

8. Over the following years, the offender frequently injected heroin to the victim with the victim’s consent. The victim never administered heroin to herself. The offender has reported that he would always dilute the dose given to the victim with water so she would think that “she was getting more than she did”.

9. The victim and the offender usually only used heroin on weekends. However, on the evening of Thursday 19 August 2021, they decided to use heroin to celebrate their anniversary. The offender purchased one or two points of heroin (approximately 0.2 grams) from his regular dealer. The offender and the victim paid for the heroin with cash.

10. At around 8:00pm that night, the offender prepared two syringes containing heroin, one for himself and one for the victim. The victim instructed the offender not to “dupe” her, as she wanted to get high.

11. The victim tied a tourniquet to her arm. The offender first injected himself with one of the syringes. He then inserted the other syringe into the vein of the victim’s arm and administering the heroin. He subsequently disposed of the needle in the bin. It appears that the offender did not mix the victim’s heroin with water, as he usually did. The offender also later claimed that the heroin that he had obtained that was of a different or stronger batch, and that his dealer had not told him this.

12. When he turned back to face the victim, the offender noted that she immediately looked unwell and appeared off-balance. Approximately 20 seconds after being injected, the victim vomited and collapsed. The offender grabbed her under her arms in an attempt to support her weight. The victim then collapsed to the floor.

13. The offender immediately called triple zero for assistance, but hung up before providing any information to the 000 operator. The reason for discontinuing the call is not clear, and it is possible that the victim required his assistance at this time. In any event, three minutes later, the offender called 000 again and commenced cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) on the victim under the direction of the emergency operator.

14. ACT Ambulance Service (ACTAS) arrived at approximately 8:10pm and found the victim on the floor of the kitchen. The victim was unresponsive. The offender was distraught, yelling “come back to me, come back to me. Don’t die”.

15. ACTAS members moved the victim to the lounge room, where they commenced CPR. During treatment, the victim had a return of spontaneous circulation and ACTAS members moved her to the ambulance.

16. ACTAS members took the victim to the Emergency Department of Calvary Public Hospital at around 8:51pm, where she underwent further extensive resuscitation attempts. The victim did not regain any cardiac output and at approximately 10:02pm she was pronounced life extinct.

17. By his plea of guilty, the offender accepts that his act of injecting the victim with heroin was an operating cause of her death.

18. The offender spoke to police and others in the hours and days following the victim’s death. The offender at all times admitted having obtained the heroin and injecting the victim with the heroin. In an interview conducted on 15 September 2022, the offender also disclosed that prior to 19 August 2021, the offender and the victim had discarded the Narcan nasal spray, which may be used to reverse the effects of an overdose. The offender admitted that he knew that Narcan needed to be administered immediately in the event of a heroin overdose.

Victim Impact Statements

19. Three of the victim’s sisters provided powerful victim impact statements in which they spoke of their profound grief following the victim’s death. It is clear from these statements that the victim was a generous, compassionate and greatly loved member of her family.

20. The loss of Laura is felt by her sisters and their extended families every day. Their grief has manifested in physical illnesses and emotional distress. It has also affected their relationships with their own immediate and broader family members.

21. The statements also spoke of how the victim’s young niece has been deprived of her relationship with her aunt. As one of the victim impact statements eloquently described “by now, she will have spent more times at Laura’s gravesite than she will have moments or weekends with her, and being so young, those memories will fade as she grows up…”

Subjective circumstances

22. The offender is currently 40 years old.

23. The offender was born and raised in Adelaide. He told the authors of the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) that he had had a disturbed upbringing. However, character references tendered on his behalf portray a different picture. The offender’s sister, for example, described the offender as having been raised in a “loving home”, with a family structure that “embraced a strong moral code”. It is not necessary for me to resolve this apparent conflict. The offender’s counsel did not contend that the offender’s background was such as to give rise to any reduction in his moral culpability for the offending: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571.

24. The offender left high school sometime between year 8 and year 10. When he was 17 years old, the offender and his girlfriend had a child. The offender obtained work as a trainee glazier to support his girlfriend and son. However, he was not able to continue with this work. His relationship with his girlfriend ended. Since then, the offender has worked in a number of jobs, including as a greengrocer, a security guard in his own security company, and as a “postie” for Australia Post. The offender obtained a disability pension in 2021. As the victim became more unwell, the offender occasionally supported the victim with her in her cleaning work.

25. The offender’s son is now aged 21 and he has a second child who is 10 years old. There was conflicting information in the material before me as to the offender’s current contact with those children. In his character reference, the offender’s father said that the offender has “remained continuously in his son’s life”. However, the offender told the authors of the PSR that he did not have any contact with his children, which the offender’s mother confirmed.

Physical and mental health

26. The offender has Spinocerebellar Ataxia and early onset dementia.

27. There is also evidence that suggests that the offender has a history of auditory hallucinations. In particular, he has reported hearing voices from a man named “Paul de th Luc”. The offender says that this man is from the 16 century.

28. Two reports concerning the appellant’s mental health were admitted into evidence in the proceedings on sentence. The first was a report of Dr Boer, who was engaged on behalf of the offender. The second was a report of Dr Le, who was engaged on behalf of the prosecution. Both psychiatrists had the benefit of medical documentation and an in person interview with the offender.

29. Both psychiatrists agreed that the offender currently meets the diagnostic criteria of Opioid Use Disorder which is currently in remission in a controlled environment. The experts also agreed that the offender has a form of schizophrenia, although they disagreed as to the precise diagnosis that should be made.

30. Dr Boer considered that the offender’s Schizophrenia and Opioid Use Disorder reduce his moral culpability. He noted that cognitive testing indicated that the offender has significant cognitive disability, potentially due to Spinocerebellar Ataxia 34. Dr Boer was of the view that the offender’s deficits in working memory may have affected his behaviour during the offending behaviour. In particular, he considered that the offender’s low level of intellectual function may have compromised his ability to manage impulsivity, plan effectively or react to the eventual emergency of his partner’s overdose. Dr Boer was of the view that the offender had no real insight into the possible dire consequences of injecting heroin to the victim.

31. Dr Boer also expressed the view that the offender’s mental impairment would increase the hardship experienced in prison and that long-term custodial sentencing may have significant adverse effects on the offender’s mental health.

32. In his report, Dr Le noted that the offender had a documented history of anxiety and depressive symptoms before the alleged offending. However, in view of the brevity and lack of depth of the recorded documentation, Dr Le was unable to ascertain whether these symptoms met the diagnostic threshold.

33. Dr Le observed that there was no objective evidence within the documentation that suggested that the offender was suffering from psychotic symptoms on or before the date of the offending. However, Dr Le noted that the offender had reported an onset of symptoms following treatment with psychostimulants given to him by Dr Robert Tym. Dr Tym is a former psychiatrist who has been found to have engaged in a repeated pattern of excessive and inappropriate prescription of medication, including dexamphetamine. Dr Le considered that the offender’s account of his interactions with Dr Tym were plausible. He further noted that onset of psychotic symptoms is a well described complication of such psychostimulants.

34. Dr Le considered that the offender’s psychotic symptoms presented a “diagnostic dilemma”, noting that it would be unusual for a stimulant induced psychotic disorder to persist after the cessation of stimulant treatment for a lengthy period without the person reporting the presence of symptoms to a health practitioner. Dr Le also noted that the diagnosis was further complicated by the offender’s family history of schizophrenia, brain injury, childhood ADHD and neurodegenerative condition. In particular, Dr Le observed that psychotic disorders have been documented in persons affected by spinocerebellar ataxia.

35. Ultimately, Dr Le was of the view that it was not possible to diagnose the offender as having schizophrenia on the basis of the offender’s current symptom profile and clinical history. He considered that the most appropriate diagnosis is of an Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and other Psychotic Disorder, although a Psychosis due to another medical condition was also a possibility.

36. Although the offender spoke of hearing Paul’s voice on the night, he was emphatic that Paul’s voice did not instruct him to inject the victim, explaining that he injected the victim because of the victim’s request. In these circumstances, Dr Le did not consider that there was any causal connection between the offender’s mental illnesses and the offending. Criminal history

37. The offender has a relatively minor criminal history, consisting of several driving related offences, and a conviction for affray. In March 2023 he was charged with failing to give particulars to the police, failing to stop a motor vehicle for police, damaging a police vehicle and obstructing/resisting a territory public official.

38. The offender’s behaviour in custody has been problematic. He has received various sanctions, including for abusing staff on two occasions, failing to be present at the cell door for musters, engaging in an altercation with another employee, and tampering with wires and jug handles to use a lighter.

Character references

39. The accused’s counsel tendered character references from his sister, father, stepmother, stepfather and mother. Each of these references described the offending as “totally out of character”, describing the offender as having a “strong belief system”.

40. The character references also explained the detrimental impact of Spinocerebellar Ataxia on the offender’s life, including the depression he suffered after his diagnosis and his subsequent reliance on drugs as a coping mechanism, as well as the defendant’s relationship with the victim.

Determination

41. The starting point in determining the sentence to be imposed must be with the recognition that the offender’s acts in administering heroin to the victim have resulted in the loss of her life. As Gleeson CJ, Kirby P and Hunt CJ held in R v MacDonald (NSWCCA, unreported, 12 December 1995): Manslaughter involves the felonious taking of a human life. This may involve a wide variety of circumstances calling for a wide variety of penal consequences. Even so, unlawful homicide, whatever form it takes, has always been recognised by the law as a most serious crime. The protection of human life and personal safety is a primary objective of the system of criminal justice. The value which the community places upon human life is reflected in its expectation of that system.

42. In the present case, the offence is constituted by the administration of heroin at the request of the victim. The offender did not intend for the victim to die or to be injured as a result of the administration of heroin. The offending was in performing an unlawful and dangerous act – that is. the injection of heroin – which caused the victim’s death.

43. The dangers of heroin use are well known, and for the victim, the risk was particularly acute, by reason of her compromised kidney and pancreas. The offender was fully aware of the victim’s health frailties. He was also fully aware that the Narcan which had previously been available had been thrown out, so that there could be no immediate treatment in the event of an overdose. These are each matters which significantly aggravate the seriousness of the offending.

44. Whilst it is apparent that the offender was devastated by the victim’s death and that he has accepted some responsibility in his admissions to police and others shortly after her death, he maintains that the victim’s death was an accident. He has limited insight into the seriousness of his offending. He has not expressed any remorse to the victim’s family.

45. As outlined above, there is evidence that the offender suffers from mental illnesses and a cognitive disability. There is no dispute that the severity of these conditions was not such as to give rise to a mental illness defence: s 28 of the Criminal Code

46. As noted above, Dr Le expressed the opinion that the offender’s psychosis was not causally connected to the offending. However, a consideration of an offender’s moral culpability must take into account the whole of the offender’s subjective case. In the present case, this included not only the evidence of psychosis (the extent and cause of which is somewhat unclear), but also the unequivocal evidence of the offender’s neurodegenerative disease. In this respect, Dr Boer assessed the offender as having a “significant cognitive disability” that appears to have been operative at the time of the offending. He explained that the effect of the offender’s conditions was that the offender “had no real insight into the possibility of dire consequences of injecting heroin into [the victim]”. I note that Dr Le did not express a view as to the relationship between the offender’s cognitive disability and the offending. I also accept that the offender’s mental illnesses and cognitive disability will render his time in custody more onerous.

47. In these circumstances, I accept that the offender’s capacity to fully appreciate the risk of his actions at the time of the offending was compromised, and that his moral culpability has been reduced to some extent by these matters.

48. Nonetheless, although there should be some reduction of the offender’s moral culpability for the offending by reason of his mental illnesses and cognitive disability, it remains necessary for the sentence imposed to recognise the harm occasioned to the victim, her family and the community. In the present case, there also remains a need to denounce the conduct and to make the offender accountable for his actions. Noting the offender’s limited insight into his offending, and the evidence in the Pre-Sentence Report that the offender continued to use illicit substances after the victim’s death prior to his incarceration, there is also a need for general and specific deterrence.

49. On the other hand, I accept that the offender has reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, particularly in view of his family support. This must also be taken into account in determining the proper penalty to be imposed.

50. I am not aware of any comparative cases in this jurisdiction concerning the sentence to be imposed for a manslaughter of this nature (that is, by reason of the administration of a drug at the request of the victim). The sentences imposed for offending for manslaughter arising from diminished responsibility, criminal negligence, and unlawful and dangerous assaults provide no guidance in determining the sentence to be imposed for a manslaughter constituted by the administration of a drug with the victim’s consent; cf R v Singh [1999] ACTSC 66; Dowling v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 290.The sentencing considerations in such cases are very different from those that arise in cases involving the consensual administration of prohibited drugs.

51. The sentences imposed in other jurisdictions for similar conduct vary greatly: see for example, The Queen v Hile [1999] QCA 17 and the cases cited therein. Whilst the principles expressed in those cases are of some assistance, the actual sentences imposed provide little to no guidance, by reason of differing maximum penalties and differing sentencing patterns in those jurisdictions: see R v Duffy [2014] ACTCA 53; 297 CLR 359 at [92].

52. There is no dispute that the s 10 threshold has been crossed, and that a sentence of full-time imprisonment is required.

53. The offender pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court. Generally speaking, such a plea would attract a 25% discount. However, the prosecution contended that a lower discount should be imposed because the case against the offender was overwhelming: see s 35(4) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).

54. The prosecution case against the offender was only overwhelming because of the offender’s frank admissions to investigating authorities. In these circumstances, s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act must be considered alongside s 36, which enables the court to impose a lesser penalty where an offender has assisted law enforcement authorities. As Mossop J observed in DPP v Calhoun (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 189 at [64]: The effect of s 35(4) would be to deny the offender a discount on account of the plea of guilty because of the strength of the prosecution case in circumstances where the strength of that case arose from voluntary admissions made by the offender. This would appear to be an outcome which was unfair and reflected no real sentencing purpose. However, s 35(4) must be read along with s 36 which permits a lesser penalty to be imposed where the offender has assisted in investigating the offence or assisted in a proceeding in relation to the offence. That must include the making of admissions that assist in the investigation or prosecution of the case against the offender. Nothing in the considerations in s 36(3) indicate that assistance in this form is not within the contemplation of the section. In circumstances where the offender would have been entitled to a reduction of 25 percent under s 35 but for the making of admissions that assisted the prosecution case, it is appropriate that he receive that discount by a combination of ss 35 and 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. See also DPP v Henry [2023] ACTSC 384 at [64] – [66].

55. Those observations have added force in cases where the offending involves drug overdoses. There is an important public interest in encouraging persons who are involved in drug overdoses to provide a complete account of the circumstances of the overdose to emergency services, so that effective treatment can be swiftly provided.

56. Accordingly, I will afford a 10% discount for the offender’s plea of guilty and a 15% discount for the offender’s admissions, resulting in an overall discount of 25% for each charge.

57. The starting point for the sentence to be imposed for the offence of manslaughter (CAN7441/2023) will be imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months. Following the discount referred to above, the head sentence will be imprisonment for a period of 4 years, 1 month and 15 days.

58. The starting point for the sentence to be imposed for the offence of administering a declared substance to another person without authorisation (CAN7442/2023) will be imprisonment for one year, reduced to 9 months after discount. The criminality involved in the offence of administer prohibited drug is entirely subsumed within the offence of manslaughter. The prosecutor properly conceded that the sentence for this offence should be entirely concurrent with the sentence to be imposed for the manslaughter offence.

59. The non-parole period will be 2 years and 24 days. I am satisfied that the parole period will be adequate to ensure that the offender is properly supervised on his release so as to facilitate his rehabilitation.

60. The sentence will be backdated 262 days to take into account the time in custody already served by the offender in reference to the current charges.

Orders

61. For the above reasons, the following orders are made: (1) For the offence of manslaughter (CAN7441/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years, 1 month and 15 days, commencing on 24 July 2023 and expiring on 7 September 2027. (2) For the offence of administering a declared substance to another person without authorisation (CAN7442/2023), the offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 months, commencing on 8 December 2026 and expiring on 7 September 2027. (3) The offender will first be eligible for parole on 16 August 2025.

I certify that the preceding sixty-one [61] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of her Honour Justice Baker Associate: Date: 11 April 2024