REGINA v GREENHALGH [2001] NSWSC 272

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : REGINA v GREENHALGH [2001] NSWSC 272 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70072/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 30 March 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 March 2001

PARTIES : Regina v Gary Grant Greenhalgh JUDGMENT OF : Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr P S Dare (Crown) Mr Anthony Parker (Offender) SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor (Crown) Egan Murphy & Co. (Offender) CATCHWORDS : Sentence - manslaughter - drunken fight - discount for guilty plea CASES CITED : R v Smith; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 DECISION : Gary Grant Greenhalgh, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of eight years commencing on 13 April 2000 and ending on 12 April 2008 with a non parole period expiring on 12 October 2004.

Revised

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 30 MARCH 2001 70072/00 REGINA v GARY GRANT GREENHALGH SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 2 February 2001 the offender, to an indictment charging him with the murder of Mitchell David Wilder at Tamworth on 11 April 2000, pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown accepted this plea in discharge of the indictment. 2 The circumstances giving rise to the offence may be briefly stated. The offender, who has been an alcoholic for many years, together with some friends, including the deceased, was involved in a drinking bout over a period of something like two days. During the night of the day in question, 11 April 2000, an argument broke out between the offender and the deceased at about 9 o'clock. It appears that the offender walked over to where the deceased was sitting on a bed and punched him hard with a fist, knocking him back onto the bed. One or more blows were again inflicted at that point. 3 The deceased left the room and walked outside with the offender following him calling on him to fight. It seems most unlikely that the deceased attempted to fight the offender who, however, punched him again. The deceased fell to the ground and the offender tried to kick him although, no doubt, having regard to his drunken state, he did not succeed and his foot did not reach the deceased's body. The offender walked away from the deceased, who was then still alive, and returned to his unit which is part of the complex in which this event occurred. 4 No one appreciated the fact that the deceased had suffered a subdural haemorrhage. I accept the fact that the offender did not for one moment think that he had inflicted lethal blows. Unfortunately, some six hours or so later the deceased who remained lying where he was outside his unit died from a subdural haemorrhage. 5 The deceased suffered from schizophrenia but he also had long standing difficulties with alcohol. He was, as I mentioned, part of the group involved in the drinking bout. 6 As it happens, police attended the premises to which the offender had returned shortly after the assaults in question but they did not see the deceased outside. Although I accept that the offender was affected by alcohol and that he certainly had had a great deal to drink, the police officer who then spoke to him did not note any significant lack of sobriety. In this respect, Ms Julie Hendy, who is a clinical and consulting neuro-psychologist consulted by the offender for the purposes of these proceedings, stated that she considered it - "...unlikely that he would at the time of the event have been exhibiting a degree of diminution in intellectual functioning such that it would affect his level of culpability for the event".