R v Anthony Jones - [2012] NSWSC 1433

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anthony Jones [2012] NSWSC 1433
Hearing dates: 2 October 2012 - 4 October 2012; 8 October 2012 - 16 October 2012; 9 November 2012
Decision date: 23 November 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Barr AJ
Decision:
For the murder of Edan Brown, the offender, Anthony Jones, is sentenced to imprisonment. Set a non-parole period of fourteen years which will be taken to have commenced on 15 June 2010 and will expire on 14 June 2024. The balance of the term will be 4 years and 8 months, expiring on 14 February 2029.
The first day on which the offender will become eligible for release to parole will be 14 June 2024.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Murder
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina - Crown
Anthony Jones - Offender
Representation: B. Hughes SC
G. Brady
Director of Public Prosecutions
Conaghan Lawyers

File Number(s): 2011/148330

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender, Anthony Jones, is to be sentenced for the murder of Edan Brown at Dee Why on 23 May 2010. The offender and the deceased, who were friends, met at a party in the backyard of a house in Dee Why on the evening of 22 May 2010. The offender arrived first and sent the deceased a message suggesting that he attend the party, but there is no suggestion that he did so out of any intent to do him harm. The deceased arrived at about 11:00pm.

There were upwards of a dozen people at the party and most were drinking alcohol. There was a garage in the backyard of the house and some surrounding lawn, and a number of those attending the party were in the garage or on the grass nearby drinking alcohol.

Shortly before 1:00am there was a heated exchange between the offender and the deceased. The evidence does not establish why. The offender and the deceased fought and the deceased was knocked to the ground. Two men, one of whom was the offender, fought the deceased as he lay and struggled on the ground.

During the struggle, the offender delivered two blows with a knife. One blow struck the left side of the back of the lower chest of the deceased. The resulting wound terminated in soft tissue without entering the left pleural cavity. Not much force would have been needed to inflict the wound. The second blow was fatal. It struck the deceased on the right side on the back of the lower chest. The knife penetrated fatty tissue and went between ribs before entering the bottom of the lower lobe of the right lung. It continued on to end in a superficial portion of the top of the liver.

The knife produced no bony injury and no great force would have been necessary to inflict the wound. As it passed between the ribs it severed an artery. The right lung collapsed. The deceased died because of loss of blood from the severed artery and because…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Anthony Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Anthony Jones [2012] NSWSC 1433
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1433
Decision Date: 23 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, Anthony Jones, who was convicted of the murder of his partner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus was on the appropriate sentencing for the crime committed.

The court was required to determine the appropriate penalty for the respondent's actions. This included considering the nature of the crime, the personal circumstances of the respondent, and any mitigating factors that might apply. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was consistent with the principles of justice and the sentencing practices of the court.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the severity of the crime, the respondent's lack of remorse, and the need to protect society. The court found that the crime was particularly heinous, given the nature of the relationship between the victim and the respondent. The court also noted the lack of any mitigating factors that would warrant a reduced sentence. After careful consideration, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. This sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and the need to ensure the safety of the community.

The final orders of the court were that Anthony Jones be imprisoned for life, with a non-parole period of 20 years. This decision was made to ensure that the respondent would be held accountable for his actions and that the community would be protected from any potential future harm.

Orders