R v A; R v Hurst

[2012] NSWDC 186

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v A; R v Hurst [2012] NSWDC 186

Hearing dates:

14 February 2012

Decision date:

14 February 2012

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Murrell SC DCJ

Decision:

A

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and five months with a non-parole period of twelve months. Order that non-parole period is to be served as a juvenile offender.

Hurst

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and five months with a non-parole period of two years and eleven months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900(NSW), s 33(1)(a), s 35

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

The Crown
A
Shane Michael Hurst

Representation:

Mr McLennan (Crown)
Mr P O'Connor (Hurst)
Mr Harrison (A)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW
Parker & Kissane Solicitors (Hurst)
Vince Boss & Associates (A)

File Number(s):

2010/88229 2010/88330

Publication restriction:

There is to be no publication of the name of the juvenile offender or of any material, which may tend to identify the offender.

Sentence

1. The offenders Shane Hurst and A each adhered to their plea of guilty in relation to two offences:

(1) On 10 April 2010 at Cougal, wound Jarrod McShane with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum available penalty for a contravention of s 33(1)(a) is twenty-five years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of seven years. This offence is a serious children's indictable offence, which means that A (who, at the time of the offence, was a juvenile) is to be tried as an adult.

(2) On the same date and at the same place, in company recklessly cause grievous bodily harm to Mr McShane. The maximum available penalty for a contravention of s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 is fourteen years imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of five years.

1. The wounding that is the subject of the s 33(1)(a) offence was caused by stabbing. The grievous bodily harm in relation to the offence against s 35 was a broken left jaw. The Crown relies upon joint criminal enterprise between the offenders and Lyndsey Pankhurst. In addition, the Crown relies upon individual stabbings by each of the three offenders in relation to the offence against s 33(1)(a).

1. The offenders were committed for trial in March 2011 and they pleaded guilty later in 2011. The Crown suggested that a discount of approximately twenty per cent for the pleas of guilty would be appropriate in the case of Mr Hurst. That is a generous suggestion, which I adopt. In the case of A, she provided significant assistance to the police by way of informing them as to the location of the knife that had been hidden after the incident and the location of clothing that had been disposed of (presumably by Mr Hurst) after the incident. Mr Harrison for A has submitted that a combined discount in the vicinity of thirty per cent would be appropriate. The…