|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | Boyd v R (No. 3) |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2017] NSWSC 863 |
Hearing Date(s): | 9 December 2016 |
Date of Orders: | 30 June 2017 |
Decision Date: | 30 June 2017 |
Jurisdiction: | Common Law |
Before: | Johnson J |
Decision: | The application to determine the Applicant’s life sentences is refused. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – application for determination of five life sentences imposed in 1985 - consideration of applicable statutory factors - offences held to be in worst category and involving great heinousness - sexual sadism involved in murder of three women and attempted murder of a fourth - four counts of murder and one of wounding with intent to murder – offences committed over seven-month period in 1982-1983 - Applicant has no real insight into offending - now 61 years old - consequence of refusal of application is that Applicant will remain in prison for the term of his natural life - application refused |
Legislation Cited: | Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 |
Cases Cited: | Boyd v R [2016] NSWSC 1691 |
Texts Cited: | Ware and Marshall, “Treatment Engagement With A Sexual Offender Who Denies Committing the Offence” Ware, Marshall and Marshall, “Categorical Denial in Convicted Sex Offenders: The Concept, its Meaning and its Implications for Risk and Treatment” |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | Samuel Leonard Boyd (Applicant) |
Representation: | Counsel: |
File Number(s): | 2015/294899 |
Publication Restriction: | --- |
JUDGMENT
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Samuel Leonard Boyd, has made application to the Court for determination of five sentences of penal servitude for life imposed upon him in 1985.
This is the third and final judgment which I am delivering with respect to the Applicant. On 25 November 2016, I refused the Applicant leave to withdraw his application for determination of life sentences with reasons for that decision being published on 30 November 2016: Boyd v R [2016] NSWSC 1691. On 5 December 2016, I declined an application by the Applicant…
Continue reading Boyd v The Queen (No. 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Boyd v The Queen (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 863
- Case
- [2017] NSWSC 863
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the crimes were of the highest degree of culpability and involved significant heinousness, particularly due to the sexual sadism demonstrated in the attacks. Boyd’s lack of insight into his offending behaviour and the serious impact on the victims further supported the severity of the sentences. The court considered the sentencing court’s recommendations, which had given substantial weight to the heinousness and level of culpability of the offences. The court also evaluated the need to protect the community and Boyd’s age at the time of the application.
In light of the heinousness of the crimes, Boyd’s lack of insight, and the statutory considerations, the court refused the application for a sentence determination. Boyd would remain in prison for the term of his natural life. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public safety and ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the offences committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Clause 3 of Schedule 1 sets out matters to be considered by the Supreme Court on the making of an application to determine an existing life sentence. Clause 3 provides:“3 Matters for consideration by Supreme Court(1) In considering an application in relation to an existing life sentence, the Supreme Court is to have regard to:(a) all of the circumstances surrounding the offence for which the sentence was imposed, and(b) all offences, wherever and whenever committed, of which the offender has been convicted,so far as this information is reasonably available to the Supreme Court.(2) The reference in subclause (1) (b) to an offence of which an offender has been convicted:(a) includes:(i) any offence in respect of which a court has found the offender guilty but has not proceeded to conviction, and(ii) any offence taken into account when the offender was sentenced, but(b) does not include:(i) an offence for which a conviction or finding of guilt has been quashed or set aside within the meaning of Part 4 of the Criminal Records Act 1991, or(ii) an offence of a class or description prescribed by the regulations.” Clause 7 of Schedule 1 provides for further matters to be considered by the Court on an application. Clause 7 states:“7 Matters relating to exercise of Supreme Court’s functions(1) In considering an application referred to in clause 2 (1), the Supreme Court is to have regard to:(a) any reports on the offender made by the Review Council, and any other relevant reports prepared after the offender was sentenced, that are available to the Supreme Court, and(b) the need to preserve the safety of the community, and(c) the age of the offender (at the time the offender committed the offence and also at the time the Supreme Court deals with the application), and(d) in the case of an offender sentenced before 12 January 1990 (the date on which section 463 of the Crimes Act 1900 was repealed by section 5 of the Prisons (Serious Offenders Review Board) Amendment Act 1989), the fact that the sentencing court:(i) would have been aware that an offender sentenced to imprisonment for life was eligible to be released on licence under section 463 of the Crimes Act 1900, and(ii) would have been aware of the practice relating to the issue of such licences, and(e) any other relevant matter.(2) The regulations may make provision for or with respect to reports referred to in subclause (1), including provisions relating to the matters to be dealt with in reports and the making of reports available to the Supreme Court.(3) In considering an application referred to in clause 2 (1), the Supreme Court:(a) must have regard to and give substantial weight to any relevant recommendations, observations and comments made by the sentencing court when imposing the sentence concerned, and(b) must give consideration to adopting or giving effect to the substance of any such recommendations, observations and comments and the intention of the sentencing court when making them, and(c) to the extent that it declines to adopt or give effect to any such recommendations, observations and comments, must make a record of its reasons for doing so.(4) Subclause (3) (c) does not limit any other requirement that the Supreme Court has, apart from that paragraph, to record the reasons for its decisions.(5) In considering an application referred to in clause 2 (1) that is made on or after 17 June 2008, or that was made before that date but not finally disposed of before the commencement of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Life Sentences) Act 2008, the Supreme Court must have regard to and give substantial weight to the following:(a) the level of culpability of the offender in the commission of the offence for which the sentence was imposed,(b) the heinousness of the offence.”