R v Connors [2018] NSWSC 1439

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Connors [2018] NSWSC 1439 Hearing dates: 21 September 2018 Decision date: 28 September 2018 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: Imprisonment for 5 years 8 months with a non-parole period of 3 years Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – manslaughter – offender with schizophrenia – substantially impaired by abnormality of mind – offender bashed sleeping mother to death with hammer – offender with auditory hallucinations telling him to kill his mother to save her soul – not appropriate to make findings as to objective seriousness by comparison to a scale – no double counting in taking into account mental illness in sentencing – significantly reduced need for denunciation, retribution, personal or general deterrence – offender genuinely remorseful – low risk of reoffending – special circumstances to warrant reduction of non-parole period – 25 per cent discount for plea of guilty. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 23A Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Nathan Connors Representation: Counsel: Mr S Hughes (Crown) Ms S Beckett (Offender)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Legal Aid NSW File Number(s): 2017/145981

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Mr Nathan Connors is to be sentenced for the manslaughter of his mother, Ms Lynda Connors, at Sylvania on 15 May 2017. 2. Manslaughter can be committed in a variety of ways. In this case Mr Connors would otherwise be guilty of murder but the Crown has accepted his plea of guilty to manslaughter on the basis of what is called "substantial impairment by abnormality of mind". Parliament has provided for this in s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). There are two parts to the concept of "substantial impairment by abnormality of mind", both of which the Crown accepts. First, at the time he killed his mother, Mr Connors' capacity to judge whether his actions were right or wrong and his capacity to control himself were substantially impaired by the mental illness of schizophrenia. Secondly, this impairment was so substantial that Mr Connors' liability for murder should be reduced to manslaughter. 3. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years. 4. I propose to first recount Mr Connors' background and life history insofar as it is relevant, because that will provide the context in which the offence occurred which I will describe next. I will then refer to subsequent events and various other matters that are relevant to the assessment of sentence.