Ward v R [2013] NSWCCA 46

Ward v R [2013] NSWCCA 46

There was no error of law or miscarriage of justice by the trial judge in any of the grounds argued. The summing-up was adequate when considered as a whole, the plea to manslaughter was properly contextualised, and the directions on accident, intoxication, intent, provocation, and substantial impairment were sufficient and not prejudicial. The findings for sentence as to mid-range seriousness, the impact of intoxication, and lack of causal connection between mental illness and offending were open on the evidence. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and no error was demonstrated in the refusal to find special circumstances or in the approach to the standard non-parole period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal conviction refused, except for Ground 6 which was dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence granted and appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'manslaughter' 'intoxication' 'provocation' 'substantial Impairment' 'directions to Jury' 'sentencing' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law'] ['murder' 'manslaughter' 'intoxication' 'provocation' 'substantial Impairment' 'directions to Jury' 'sentencing' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in directions to the jury regarding standard of proof, the effect of a rejected plea to manslaughter, accident, intoxication and intent, provocation, and substantial impairment; whether there was a miscarriage of justice; whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or involved error in the consideration of intoxication, mental impairment, mid-range seriousness, standard non-parole period, or special circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error of law or miscarriage of justice by the trial judge in any of the grounds argued. The summing-up was adequate when considered as a whole, the plea to manslaughter was properly contextualised, and the directions on accident, intoxication, intent, provocation, and substantial impairment were sufficient and not prejudicial. The findings for sentence as to mid-range seriousness, the impact of intoxication, and lack of causal connection between mental illness and offending were open on the evidence. The sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and no error was demonstrated in the refusal to find special circumstances or in the approach to the standard non-parole period.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal conviction refused, except for Ground 6 which was dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence granted and appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to appeal the conviction except for Ground 6.' 'Grant leave to raise Ground 6 of the appeal but dismiss that ground.' 'Grant leave to appeal against sentence and dismiss that appeal.']