Sentence for Officer Who Killed Great-Grandmother by Taser Is Manifestly Inadequate

The former police officer convicted of manslaughter for fatally tasering 95-year-old great-grandmother Clare Nowland at an aged care facility in southern New South Wales has been given a non-custodial sentence, with many expressing the view that the penalty is far too lenient and would undoubtedly have included a term of imprisonment had the offender been someone other than a police officer.

The incident

Now, 35-year-old Kristian White was a senior constable when he attended Yallambee Lodge aged care facility in Cooma with another officer on 17 May 2023 in response to information that a resident was in possession of a knife.

The officers arrived and saw 95-year-old great-grandmother Clare Nowland, who weighed just 45 kilograms at the time, in a walking frame and holding a steak knife. She was reported to have been rambling, and it should have been clear she was suffering from a mental health episode. She was suffering from dementia at the time.

According to witnesses, including paramedics already at the scene, rather than attempt to de-escalate the situation or disarm her without using a weapon, senior constable White aggressively directed the frail elderly woman to drop the knife. When she failed to drop the cutlery item, the officer stated “just.. nah, bugger it” before deploying his taser twice – once into Mrs Nowland’s chest and another into her back.

The great-grandmother fell to the floor and fractured her skull, later dying in hospital as a result of her injuries.

The charges

After an internal inquiry found that the force used against Mrs Nowland was “grossly excessive”, officer White was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault.

The charges were later upgraded on the advice of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to include the offence of manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

The trial

The jury trial took place in November 2024 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

After hearing all of the evidence as well as the judge’s directions on the law, the jury retired for its deliberations and ultimately found the defendant guilty of manslaughter.

The verdict came after an eight-day trial and 20 hours of deliberations, and represented a finding that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Nowland died as a result of the conduct of Mr White – disagreeing with the defence argument that the officer’s actions were a reasonable and proportionate response to the circumstances as he perceived them; in other words, that they were in self-defence of himself or another person.

The sentence

But what followed has stunned Mrs Nowland’s family, as well as many legal observers and members of the public.

The judge ultimately allowed the officer to avoid a full-time prison sentence, instead imposing a two-year community correction order (a form of good behaviour bond) and ordering the former officer to undertake 425 hours of community service. 

This is despite manslaughter carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

The response

As stated, the Nowland family was stunned by the leniency of the sentence.

Mrs Clare Nowland was survived by children, grandchildren, and other extended family, who described the penalty as a mere ‘slap on the wrist’. 

Echoing the sentiments of the family, legal experts and academics claim that the sentencing was a surprise and way too lenient for actions that caused the death of an elderly and innocent woman. A highly respected law professor at the University of New South Wales, Helen Gibbon, stated that non-custodial sentences for manslaughter are typically reserved for actions that are ‘slightly more serious than an accident’, rather than deliberate and potentially dangerous conduct – which in this case is twice a discharging a taser at an elderly and frail woman.

The professor pointed out that the sentencing judge, Justice Harrison, imposed the lenient sentence despite acknowledging the seriousness of the incident.

What is a community correction order?

On 24 September 2018, community correction orders replaced good behaviour bonds under section 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and community service orders.

A community correction order can be thought of as a type of good behaviour bond with conditions.

Community corrections orders must state that the defendant must not commit any further offences, and that they must come back to court if called upon to do so – which would only normally occur if a further offence is committed, or where there is a failure to abide by the conditions of the order.

A court can include a range of conditions in a community correction order based on the person and the offence, such as a curfew, community service work, rehabilitation programs, abstaining from substances, not entering specific places, or not associating with particular people. 

The order can last for up to three years, and will automatically lapse after the ordered time period has elapsed.

Was the sentence manifestly inadequate?

There are always a range of factors that must be taken into account when arriving at an appropriate sentence for any offence. These factors include:

• The nature and circumstances of the case, 
• The number of offences committed by the offender, 
• The personal circumstances of the victim, 
• Injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence, 
• The degree to which the offender has shown contrition,
• The need to deter the offender or other persons from committing a similar offence, 
• The need to protect the community from the offender,
• The need to ensure that the offender is punished for the offence,
• The character, age, cultural background, means, and physical/mental condition, and
• The prospect of rehabilitation. 

In the present case, the offence of manslaughter is indeed a very serious one and the actions themselves, as Professor Gibbon points out, were deliberate and reckless in the circumstances.

Further guidance on the appropriateness of the sentence may be gleaned from statistics published by the Judicial Commission of New South Wales.

Those statistics suggest that a total of 146 offenders have been sentenced for manslaughter since 24 September 2018.

144 of those offenders (98.6%) received prison time, and the remaining 2 (1.4%) received community correction orders.

The average full term prison sentence was 8.5 years, and the average non-parole period was 4.5 years. 

Given the actions of the senior constable were deliberate rather than, in Professor Gibbon’s words, ‘slightly more serious than an accident’, it appears the sentence may indeed be manifestly inadequate – regardless of the officer’s subjective (personal) features. 

Indeed, there is an argument that given his training and size, and consequent likely ability to disarm a steak knife from a 95-year old female dementia patient who weighs 45 kilograms and requires a walking frame for mobility, the officer’s conduct in twice discharging a taser was considerably reckless and egregious, particularly in light of the fact that guidelines issued by the New South Wales Police Force on the use of tasers – which are devices that officers are taught can cause death, especially to those who are physically vulnerable – do not authorise their deployment in anything even remotely resembling such circumstances.

Should the DPP appeal the sentence?

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) will now need to decide whether to appeal against the sentence on the basis it was indeed manifestly inadequate in the circumstances – something also known as an ‘inadequacy appeal’.

Inadequacy appeals from the District and Supreme Court are made to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) and come before a bench of three Supreme Court Justices (judges).

When considering whether to make such an appeal, the DPP will consider a number of factors, including:

• Whether the court made a material error of law, misunderstood proper sentencing principles, or wrongly assessed evidence, 
• Whether there is an inadequacy of the sentence due to an error of principle by the sentence, 
• The range of sentences legitimately open to the sentence on the facts, 
• The conduct of the proceedings and conduct of the case, 
• Any element of double jeopardy involved in a Crown appeal and its effect on the outcome,
• The appeal court’s discretion not to intervene, and 
• Whether the appeal is considered likely to succeed. 

Considering the matters already stated, there is a strong argument the DPP should file such an appeal and bring the matter before the NSWCCA for determination.