R v Hill [2019] NSWSC 733

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hill [2019] NSWSC 733 Hearing dates: 10 May 2019 Decision date: 21 June 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Ierace J Decision: The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years 6 months. Catchwords: SENTENCING – manslaughter by substantial impairment – schizophrenia – subjective considerations on sentence – impact of mental illness on objective seriousness and moral culpability – mental illness heightening danger to community – plea of guilty at earliest opportunity – special circumstances Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 23A, 25A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 28 Cases Cited: GC v R [2018] NSWCCA 280 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 R v Keceski (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 10 August 1993, unrep) R v Wilson (2005) 153 A Crim R 257; [2005] NSWCCA 112 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Peter Lindsay Hill Representation: Counsel: A McCarthy (Crown) R Wilson (Offender)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Offender) File Number(s): 2016/329384

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Peter Lindsay Hill, who hereafter I will refer to as the offender, has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of John Patrick Hill, at Darlinghurst on 3 November 2016. The two men were not related, indeed were strangers, before their paths crossed that day. The offender randomly attacked Mr Hill as the two men were about to pass each other on the footpath on Crown Street, Darlinghurst. The offender punched and kicked Mr Hill, causing him to fall backwards and strike his head. That injury caused his death. 2. The offender was originally charged with murder. Following his arrest, he was examined by two forensic psychiatrists, one retained by the defence and the other by the Crown. The psychiatrists agreed that, at the time of the offence, the offender was suffering from schizophrenia and that, in the manner that it affected him, his capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions that caused Mr Hill's death was substantially impaired. Accordingly, the offender had available to him a partial defence to the charge of murder, known as manslaughter on the basis of a "substantial impairment by abnormality of mind", hereinafter referred to as manslaughter by substantial impairment. The offender offered to plead guilty to manslaughter on that basis, and the Crown accepted that plea. I will return to a further consideration of the precise way in which that mental illness impacted on the offender's responsibility for his actions, later in my judgment.