Smith v R

The jury verdict

1. In order to understand the jury verdict, it is necessary to turn to the relevant legislation. Sections 418, 419 and 421 of the Crimes Act provide as follows: "418 Self-defence - when available (1) A person is not criminally responsible for an offence if the person carries out the conduct constituting the offence in self-defence. (2) A person carries out conduct in self-defence if and only if the person believes the conduct is necessary: (a) to defend himself or herself or another person, or (b) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person, or (c) to protect property from unlawful taking, destruction, damage or interference, or (d) to prevent criminal trespass to any land or premises or to remove a person committing any such criminal trespass, and the conduct is a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them. 419 Self-defence - onus of proof In any criminal proceedings in which the application of this Division is raised, the prosecution has the onus of proving, beyond reasonable doubt, that the person did not carry out the conduct in self-defence. 421 Self-defence - excessive force that inflicts death (1) This section applies if: (a) the person uses force that involves the infliction of death, and (b) the conduct is not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he or she perceives them, but the person believes the conduct is necessary: (c) to defend himself or herself or another person, or (d) to prevent or terminate the unlawful deprivation of his or her liberty or the liberty of another person. (2) The person is not criminally responsible for murder but, on a trial for murder, the person is to be found guilty of manslaughter if the person is otherwise criminally responsible for manslaughter."

The Crown case

1. The Crown case may be stated as follows. The factual matters are drawn from the findings of fact contained in the Remarks on Sentence.
2. As of January 2013, the applicant was 22 years of age. He was a long time close friend of Mr George, who was 24 years of age. For some months prior to the shooting of Mr George, the two had used methylamphetamine and other drugs together. Although they were good friends, they had, on several occasions, engaged in fisticuffs with one another. The applicant invariably "came off second best".
3. The applicant and Mr George also associated with a group of other young men and women, around the south western suburbs of Sydney. The group met informally on 19 January, an occasion when there was some "sparring" and some degree, although temporary, of tension. During the course of that night, initially at the home of one female friend, and later at the home of another, the applicant and Mr George used more illicit drugs.
4. At about 8.00am the following morning, a confrontation took place between the applicant, Mr George, and others. The confrontation escalated. The applicant had in his possession a pair of bicycle forks which he swung at Mr George several times, although he struck him only once. Mr George armed himself with a piece of timber. The group separated for a time, but arrangements were made for a fight to take place later that day between the applicant and Mr George, on a roadway in the vicinity of the applicant's home. At some stage, Mr George collected a backpack and the applicant armed himself with a loaded rifle. During the course of the day the applicant continued to use methylamphetamine.
5. At about 1.30pm Mr George walked to the proposed venue for the fight. The applicant, with the rifle, was waiting for him. Mr George was accompanied by two other men and a woman; one of the men had possession of the backpack that Mr George had earlier obtained. Mr George had in the pockets of his jeans a pair of knuckledusters that were concealed from view. He had no other weapon. A verbal dispute between the applicant and Mr George and the others ensued.
6. The applicant perceived that he was about to be attacked by the three males (although, at that stage, no physical altercation had taken place). He formed the view that it was necessary to defend himself, aimed the rifle directly at Mr George, and fired. The single bullet struck and killed him.

The defence case

1. The applicant gave evidence in the trial.
2. He gave a lengthy account of the events leading up to the shooting. As to the shooting itself, he said that, as he approached the group, he saw that the two men who were supporting Mr George had weapons. One had a "pole", the other had a machete. He did not take much notice of Mr George. He (the applicant) pulled out the gun and pointed it at one of the men. He was concerned about that man, who he said was "a bad standover man", who would "do anything". He claimed that he had been told that all of the men in Mr George's group had weapons and that was why he obtained the gun. He said: "He didn't mention what weapons, he just said they've got, I took it as if they had a gun. I didn't think it would be an axe or nothing like that." He said: "… I seen he [not Mr George] had a weapon, yeah, he was the main one, and then I looked over at Josh [Mr George] because he said something, like, that really caught my attention, like, get out of here because we come, like, come in there, and I looked at him and he was standing direct, like, really behind Jamaine [the woman], Jamaine had her hands behind her back and Josh looked like he was grabbing something off [her], and I said 'What are you fucking doing, what are you getting', like, in my head I thought he was getting a gun off her, that's why I, like, I was looking at her. I can't explain how was I was feeling, I was, just, even now, like, my heart's pumping, you know what I mean, like, even thinking about it now. … and then I told him to stop fucking around, I said 'What are you fuck', like, 'What the fuck are you doing, what have you got', and I seen Josh lift up his T-shirt and I just seen like a little bit of shine go on this silver, it looked to me like a gun, and he's stepped to the side, put his hand on Jamaine's shoulder and, like, stepped forward and the gun's gone off and his head jolted back like he had been shot in the head. … he moved forward at me, like, as he was lifting up his shirt he was grabbing whatever it was there, now I know it was knuckledusters but at the time 100 per cent I thought it was a gun. That's why I pointed it at him and, like, I just shot. …"
3. He was asked if he thought Mr George was going to "do something" to him, and replied: "A. Yeah. Thought I was, he was going to, I thought I was going to get shot. There was four of them, there was one of me, what could I do, I couldn't, there was nowhere I could run, at one side of the fence it's a house so I couldn't go that way, my door was locked, I couldn't go inside, that side of the fence that I'd jumped over after I shot him there was all rubbish there so at the time that wasn't an option, like, I had nowhere to go, I was, I had nowhere to go, there was four of them, they all had weapons, what could I do, there was nothing. If I didn't have that gun I would be dead right now."
4. In short, the applicant's case (in terms of s 418) was: (i) that he perceived that Mr George was armed with a gun, and that he was about to use it against the applicant; (ii) that he believed, in those circumstances, that shooting Mr George was necessary in order to defend himself; and (iii) that his conduct was a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them.
5. There was also a suggestion in the applicant's evidence that he acted to protect family members, but this was rejected by the sentencing judge, and it is not necessary to take that any further.

Analysis of the verdict

1. Section 418 provides a complete defence and is applicable to various offences other than (but including) murder. Where the issue is raised, by s 419 the onus lies on the Crown to negative the defence. The jury's verdict demonstrates that the Crown successfully did so. (If that were not so, the verdict would have been an acquittal.) Rejection by the jury of self-defence has the necessary implication that the Crown proved, beyond reasonable doubt, either:

• that the applicant did not believe that his conduct was necessary to defend himself; or
• that the applicant's conduct was not a reasonable response to the circumstances as he perceived them.

1. The "conduct" is the specific conduct undertaken - in this case, shooting Mr George.
2. Plainly, having rejected the s 418 defence, the jury then turned to s 421. Relevantly, the essentials of s 421 are:

• the accused uses force that involves the infliction of death;
• the accused believes that that conduct (that is, the use of the force in fact used) is necessary to defend himself or herself or another person; and
• that conduct is not a reasonable response in the circumstances as the accused perceives them.

1. Logically, if the jury accepted that the Crown had proved that the applicant did not believe that his conduct was necessary to defend himself, it would not have proceeded to consider the second s 418 question (the reasonableness of his conduct) and it would not have proceeded to consider any of the s 421 questions. It may therefore be taken that the jury did accept that the applicant believed that his conduct in shooting Mr George was necessary in order to defend himself (or, more accurately, that the Crown had failed to prove that he did not have that belief).
2. Indeed, this may also be seen directly, because one of the elements of s 421 is that the applicant's conduct was not reasonable in the circumstances as he perceives them. For the purposes of s 421, there could be no doubt (given the applicant's own evidence) that (in the language of s 421(1)(a)) he used force that inflicted death on Mr George. The basis for the verdict must therefore have been that the jury accepted that the Crown had proved that the applicant's conduct was not reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them. For the purposes of this application, the words "the circumstances as he perceived them" are critical.
3. It may further be accepted that the jury considered, at least as a reasonable possibility, that the applicant believed that Mr George was armed with a gun. That is because: (i) s 421 contemplates that the accused believes that "the conduct" is necessary to defend himself. It is not sufficient that the accused believes that it is necessary to do something, or take some action, other than, or short of, the conduct that inflicts death in order to defend himself; (ii) it is difficult to imagine that the jury (acting reasonably) could have reached the view that the applicant believed that, in order to defend himself, it was necessary to shoot Mr George, unless it also reached the view that he believed that Mr George was armed with a gun and was preparing to use it. A jury (acting reasonably) would be unlikely to conclude that the applicant believed that it was necessary to shoot Mr George if he believed Mr George was only armed with was knuckledusters.
4. Dissection of the jury verdict presents something of a logical conundrum. If the jury accepted, as a reasonable possibility, that the applicant believed that Mr George was about to shoot him, it may well have also accepted that it was not unreasonable for the applicant to shoot first. However, the jury's verdict was that his conduct was not reasonable, and it was on that basis that Garling J was obliged to sentence.

Other circumstances relevant to sentencing

1. Evidence as to other relevant sentencing considerations was before the sentencing judge in the form of a Pre-Sentence Report and a psychiatric report. These, in conjunction with the applicant's evidence in the trial, disclosed the following.
2. The applicant was born in June 1991, and was, as mentioned above, 22 years of age at the time of the offence. His early life was disrupted by the separation of his parents when he was very young. His mother suffers from mental illness; his father is said to be alcoholic. Some indication of the nature of his childhood might be obtained from the following, recorded in the psychiatric report: "He denied being the victim of physical abuse himself at home, apart from 'copping floggings … what the average kid would get,' until he was about 13 years of age."
3. He himself used alcohol from the age of 13, and amphetamines from the age of 16.
4. He has a criminal record that includes a number of offences of assault or other violent behavior, and has served two terms of imprisonment. In 2010 he was convicted of an offence of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm while in company, in respect of which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years, with a non-parole period of 18 months. He was on parole in respect of that sentence at the time of the present offence.
5. The author of the Pre-Sentence Report recorded the applicant's largely unsatisfactory responses to various sentences, and in particular, his conduct whilst in custody, which has involved instances of violence and significant breaches of prison discipline.
6. The examining psychiatrist concluded that: "… [h]e may well have emerging signs of a serious mental illness, such as bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and/or prodromal phase of such an illness." He diagnosed "anxiety disorder not otherwise specified".

The Remarks on Sentence

1. Garling J found the facts as outlined above. His task, as he recognised, was to make findings of fact available on the evidence, so long as those facts were not inconsistent with the jury's verdict. At the commencement of his Remarks, he said: "14 In order to make findings of fact which are consistent with the jury's verdict, those findings will reflect my view that Mr Smith is guilty of manslaughter because, even though he deliberately shot Mr George intending to cause him grievous bodily harm, there was a reasonable possibility that Mr Smith believed that shooting Mr George was necessary to defend himself …" He noted that, however, the shooting was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as the applicant perceived them to be. He described the applicant as "a thoroughly unconvincing witness", and proceeded to find the facts on the basis of evidence other than that given by the applicant. The findings relevant to the proposed grounds of appeal concern one element of the partial defence of excessive self-defence - what were the circumstances as the applicant perceived them? In this respect, the applicant's position depended upon his evidence that he believed that Mr George was armed with a gun, which he was about to use.
2. Garling J approached the sentencing exercise on the basis that the applicant did, in fact, believe that he was in danger from Mr George and that it was necessary to defend himself. He said so repeatedly. That is not the same as an express finding that the applicant believed that Mr George was armed with a gun which he was prepared to use. Having regard to the manner in which this application has been conducted, it is necessary to set out some of his Honour's observations and findings.
3. His Honour referred, in some detail, to the prelude to the shooting that led to the arrangement that a physical confrontation take place. He referred to evidence that Mr George told one of the other men that he and the applicant were going to have "a one-on-one" later that day. His Honour took "a one-on-one" to be a fist fight. He referred to the evidence that there had been a number of previous fist fights between the two, from which Mr George had generally emerged victorious.
4. He rejected evidence of the applicant that he had armed himself with the rifle because he thought he was being "set up"; he found, instead, that the applicant chose to arm himself with the rifle because of his earlier unsuccessful encounters with Mr George.
5. He found as a fact that the arrangement was "that a fist fight would occur", and that the other men were present to ensure that it would take place in accordance with the local rules applicable to such events. He accepted that the presence of the others increased the fear felt by the applicant.
6. On at least four occasions, he stated that the applicant's response was "manifestly excessive", or "grossly excessive". That the response was excessive was necessarily implied by the jury verdict. The degree to which it was excessive was a matter for the sentencing judge to determine, on an assessment of the whole of the evidence. His Honour found that there were alternative courses of action available to the applicant, specifying as examples that he could have fired the rifle into the air or towards the ground, or in some other way that would not have endangered life. He said: "45 Notwithstanding the claims of the offender, I am not satisfied that any of [Mr George and his supporters] were carrying any weapons which were on display, or in any way visible to the offender. Whilst the deceased was in possession of a set of knuckledusters, they were concealed from view in a pocket of his jeans … 46 In the course of the verbal confrontation, I am satisfied that the offender, whose ability to perceive what was happening was, to some extent, affected by his deliberate consumption of drugs, probably a combination of methylamphetamine and Xanax tablets, formed the view that he was going to be physically attacked by the three males present, although all that in fact occurred was an exchange of verbal insults. No doubt this heightened his pre-existing sense of fear. Accordingly, the offender formed the view that it was necessary to defend himself. Having formed that view, he promptly fired a shot from the loaded .22 calibre rifle, which was aimed directly at the deceased … … 48 Whilst I accept that the offender had formed a belief that it was necessary to defend himself, I am equally satisfied that the force which he used, namely, firing the rifle at the deceased, was quite unreasonable. It was manifestly excessive. 49 As I have said, the deceased did not in fact, have any weapons upon him, other than the concealed knuckledusters. His intention, and the arrangement, was that a fist-fight would occur … … 55 In the course of a verbal confrontation which followed when the deceased, [and the two other men] arrived in the general vicinity of the back of the offender's house, the offender formed the belief that it was necessary to defend himself and, as a consequence, shot and killed the deceased … 56 The shooting and killing of the deceased was not a reasonable response to the belief that the offender had that it was necessary to defend himself. There were many other things that the offender could have done to defend himself quite adequately, but he chose not do so." (italics added) There is nothing in these passages that amounts to an express finding that the applicant's perception of the danger that he was in included the danger of being shot by Mr George. Indeed, statements in [46] and [49] suggest the contrary - that the applicant was aware that Mr George was unarmed. So, also, do the proposed alternative courses of action - firing warning shots - suggest that the applicant knew that he was not in danger from shooting.
7. There is, however, one passage in a later section of the Remarks which might be interpreted as an implicit finding to that effect (see [40] below).
8. Turning to other relevant sentencing considerations, the sentencing judge noted the applicant's record of previous convictions, and the fact that this offence was committed while on parole for the previous offences. He treated the latter as an aggravating factor.
9. He characterised the objective gravity of the offence as "very serious".
10. He accepted that, by reason of the applicant's perception that Mr George was reaching for what he thought was a weapon, there was a degree of provocation as provided by s 21A(3)(c) of the Sentencing Procedure Act, but added that little weight could be accorded to this circumstance. He noted an answer given by the applicant in his examination in chief concerning remorse, but described this as: "… a thoroughly unconvincing expression of any remorse for his actions, and a thoroughly unconvincing statement of acceptance of any responsibility for the death of the deceased." He said that he "simply did not believe it". He added, however, that in later interviews with the psychiatrist and the author or the Pre-Sentence Report, there did appear to have been some expression of remorse.
11. He noted the applicant's offer to plead guilty to the offence of which he was ultimately convicted, and accordingly, reduced the sentence (of 16 years) which he otherwise would have imposed by 25 per cent, to a sentence of imprisonment of 12 years.

The proposed grounds of appeal

1. Four grounds of appeal are proposed. They are: "Ground 1: The Sentencing Judge did not afford procedural fairness to the applicant, as he did not give the applicant the opportunity to address his rejection of the joint position of the parties that the jury's verdict was consistent with a finding that [the] applicant believed that the deceased possessed a firearm. Ground 2: The Sentencing Judge erred in his application of the first leg of the test of self defence. Ground 3: The Learned Sentencing Judge made findings of fact in relation to the applicant's belief that the conduct was necessary to defend himself that were inconsistent with the jury's verdict. Ground 4: The sentence was manifestly excessive."
2. Before turning to a consideration of the grounds and their resolution, I make the following observations.
3. There is no issue that the jury's verdict carries the implication that the applicant perceived that he was in a position in which it was necessary that he act in order to defend himself. Nor is there any issue that he was sentenced on that basis. Embedded within that proposition, however, are two further questions: (i) what were the circumstances as the applicant perceived them to be? (ii) what, precisely, was the conduct that the applicant believed was necessary in order to defend himself?
4. Central to the sentencing exercise was the identification of the circumstances as the applicant (rightly or wrongly) perceived them. The applicant's perception of the circumstances is relevant to the determination of what he believed it was necessary to do in order to defend himself: s 421(1)(c). For reasons already given, that must be taken to have been found in favour of the applicant. And his perception was integral to the issue raised by s 421(1)(b) - the reasonableness of his conduct in responding to those circumstances. Both questions above are therefore to be assessed by reference to the applicant's subjective perception - affected, as it was (as the sentencing judge accepted) by some (indeterminate) level of drug intoxication.
5. The applicant's submissions proceed on the basis that (i) what the applicant perceived (in accordance with his evidence) was that Mr George was armed with a gun, and was prepared to use it against the applicant; and (ii) that the applicant believed that using his own gun to shoot Mr George was necessary in order to defend himself. As I have indicated above, logical analysis of the jury's verdict suggests that both propositions are correct.

Grounds 1-3

1. The substratum of all of these grounds is the treatment by the sentencing judge of the applicant's subjective perception of the circumstances in which he found himself. The point sought to be made (as I understand it) is that the sentencing judge did not proceed upon the basis that the applicant's perception of the circumstances was that Mr George was armed with a gun and was about to use it, but on the more generalised (and lesser) basis that the applicant perceived himself to be in some danger from Mr George and his supporters.
2. Ground 1 is based upon two premises. The first is that, on sentencing, the Crown made a concession to the effect that the applicant believed that Mr George had a gun in his possession and was about to use it. The second is that, in sentencing the applicant, the judge departed from that concession, without signalling that such a course was in his contemplation and therefore allowing for further argument, or an attempt to persuade him of the relevant facts.
3. There is one passage in the Crown's sentencing submissions on which the applicant relied to support the proposition that such a concession had been made by the Crown. That is that part of the submissions that reads: "It would appear that the jury found, or at least had a reasonable doubt so far as the Crown case was concerned, that the Offender believed that the Deceased had a gun in his possession and was about to use it. At the time of the shooting the Deceased had a knuckle duster in the waist area of his pants."
4. That, it was submitted in this Court, was consistent with the approach taken on behalf of the applicant, which was encapsulated in the following passage in the written submissions: "The jury's verdict clearly indicates that the offender feared for his safety, at the time he pulled the trigger. It is submitted that your Honour would not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Offender did not believe that the deceased had a gun in his possession at the time of the shooting. The jury may have accepted that the Offender believed that the Deceased had a gun, but in the circumstances of the case shooting at the deceased was excessive in the circumstances."
5. However, the Crown submissions must be read as a whole; later, the Crown submitted that "even if" the applicant believed that Mr George was reaching for a gun, it was not necessary for the applicant to shoot him; and, in the subsequent paragraph, the Crown submitted that the applicant was "only guessing that" Mr George had a gun.
6. The first premise is, therefore, at the least, overstated. There was no joint position taken by the parties.
7. The question raised by Ground 1, that is, whether, assuming the parties to have adopted a "joint position" as to the belief of the applicant, the sentencing judge departed from that position, in such a way as to give rise to procedural unfairness, thus becomes superfluous. However, since I have concluded above that what is said to have been the "joint position of the parties" does accurately reflect what the jury found, the real question (see Ground 3) is whether the approach taken by the sentencing judge was inconsistent with that proposition.
8. The submissions advanced in support of Ground 2 were entirely (and erroneously) based upon s 418 of the Crimes Act. The relevant section for this purpose is s 421. However, the issue is essentially the same. The proposition advanced in support of the applicant was that the sentencing judge found only that the applicant believed that it was necessary to act in self-defence, whereas what was required was a finding that the applicant believed that it was necessary to engage in the conduct he did - that is, shooting Mr George - in order to defend himself.
9. It may be - and was, on all sides - accepted that the applicant believed that it was necessary to defend himself. That is implicit in the jury's verdict. That is not the same as finding - and proceeding on the basis that - the applicant believed that the conduct that was necessary for that purpose was as extreme as shooting Mr George.
10. It was also implicit in the jury verdict - and explicit in the Remarks on Sentence - that the applicant's conduct in shooting Mr George was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them. The reasonableness of the applicant's conduct was to be measured against the applicant's perception of the circumstances in which he found himself. A relevant and important sentencing question concerns the extent to which his conduct departed from what would have been a reasonable response had the circumstances been as he perceived them.
11. If the applicant perceived (as was the fact) that Mr George was armed only with knuckledusters, then his conduct was grossly disproportionate. If, however, his perception was that Mr George was armed with a gun which he was about to use, then the degree of departure from what was reasonable would inevitably be seen as substantially less.
12. The emphasis in s 421 on the response of an accused person "in the circumstances as he or she perceives them" calls for an evaluation of the degree to which the response exceeds that which would be a reasonable response if those circumstances existed. For reasons I have given above, the Crown was not able to exclude the possibility that the applicant's perception was that Mr George was armed with a gun and that he was about to use it.
13. The sentencing judge did not make any direct or express finding of what the circumstances were as perceived by the applicant. Rather, he repeatedly accepted that the applicant perceived that he was under threat from Mr George and his supporters ("[he] formed the view that he was going to be physically attacked", and "he formed the view that it was necessary to defend himself") but never clearly articulated the content of the applicant's belief. Such a finding was essential to the key question for sentencing - to what extent was the applicant's response disproportionate to the circumstances as perceived by him?
14. Had the sentencing judge made explicit reference to the applicant's perception of the circumstances in which he found himself, he must, in my view, have concluded that that perception included the presence of a loaded gun in Mr George's possession, and that Mr George was about to use it against him.
15. That omission had repercussions in the evaluation of the degree of unreasonableness (excessiveness) of the applicant's response, which his Honour characterised as "manifestly" and "grossly" excessive.
16. Ground 3 complains that certain of the findings of fact were inconsistent with the jury verdict of not guilty of murder, but rather were consistent with a conviction for murder. I have mentioned above the difficulty of reconciling some aspects of the jury verdict.
17. The finding that the arrangement was that there was to be a fist-fight (the implication being that the applicant was a knowing party to that arrangement) is, in my opinion, inconsistent with the finding that the applicant believed that it was necessary to use his gun against Mr George, as is the finding that the applicant could see no weapon on any of his opponents (with its implication that the applicant had no reason to believe that Mr George was armed), and the finding that the alternatives available to the applicant included firing warning shots.
18. I have concluded that there was error in the sentencing process. It accordingly becomes necessary for this Court to re-sentence: Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601.

Ground 4: manifest excess

1. Having regard to my conclusion that there was error, it is unnecessary (and probably unnecessarily distracting - see Davis v R [2015] NSWCCA 90) to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
2. The argument addressed to this ground was made by reference to a table setting out previous sentences imposed in respect of jury convictions for manslaughter by reason of excessive self-defence. Those sentences are useful in the consideration of the fresh sentence that must be imposed.
3. The limitations on the use of bare data of this kind are well known. However, it is of interest that, of the cases noted, only one (R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377; 160 A Crim R 1) resulted in a sentence of 12 years (with a non-parole period of 8 years). That sentence was imposed in relation to one of two separate offences of manslaughter with which the court was dealing at the same time.
4. In response to Ground 4, the Crown identified a number of relevant considerations. While these considerations were advanced as countering the proposition that a sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years was manifestly excessive, they are also relevant to the fresh exercise, by this Court, of the sentencing discretion.
5. Those considerations (and, where appropriate, my interpretation) are: (i) that the applicant brought a loaded rifle to a fist fight. (There is some difficulty in this proposition, taking into account the conclusions I have reached above. What is entirely unclear from the jury verdict, not determined by the sentencing judge and not able to be determined by this Court, is the point at which the applicant formed the perception that Mr George was armed with a gun. However, the very fact that the applicant had access to a loaded gun, and was prepared (prior to the events in question) to use it, is relevant to the overall circumstances of the offence); (ii) the applicant was on parole at the time of the offence; (iii) the applicant's criminal history including two offences of personal violence; (iv) the absence of remorse. (In this respect, the Crown acknowledged that, notwithstanding the sentencing judge's rejection of the applicant's evidence as to this remorse, he did accord some weight to similar expressions made by the applicant to the psychiatrist); (v) the virtual absence of mitigating features. (For myself, I would not accept this proposition in the bald terms in which it is put. The psychiatric history shows a background of emotional and physical deprivation that is relevant to the applicant's moral culpability: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571. In this case, the applicant's background is a modestly mitigating factor.)
6. In re-sentencing the applicant, it is necessary and appropriate to take into account the maximum penalty provided for the offence of manslaughter (imprisonment for 25 years): Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120.
7. It is also necessary to bear in mind that, because of the infinitely various circumstances in which the offence of manslaughter is committed, limited guidance is to be obtained from previously imposed sentences.
8. I have set out above what I consider to be the necessary implications of the jury verdict. Essential to that analysis is the applicant's perception that he was in danger of being shot by Mr George. That, in my opinion, is a significantly mitigating factor. (It is not to the point that another jury might have taken a more sceptical view of the evidence.)
9. I have come to the view that the appropriate sentence to impose upon the applicant is one of imprisonment for 10 years, commencing on 12 February 2013 and expiring on 11 February 2023, with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months, expiring on 11 August 2020.
10. The orders I propose are: 1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted; 2. Appeal allowed, sentence imposed on 8 August 2014 quashed; 3. In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 12 February 2013 and expiring on 11 August 2020 with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months expiring on 11 February 2023.
11. HAMILL J: I agree with Simpson J.

Amendments 17 July 2015 - Incorrect reference to standard non-parole period deleted DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 17 July 2015