R v Bailey - [2018] NSWSC 411

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bailey [2018] NSWSC 411
Hearing dates: 23 March 2018
Date of orders: 05 April 2018
Decision date: 05 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) For the offence of the murder of Guy Henderson, I impose a sentence of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 15 years and 9 months with a balance of term of 5 years and 3 months to commence on 23 July 2016.
(2) You will not be eligible for release on parole before 22 April 2032.
Catchwords: SENTENCING – one offence of murder – mid-range of seriousness – early guilty plea – self-induced intoxication – diagnosed mental disorders – Autism Spectrum Disorder – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – Oppositional Defiance Disorder – aggravating factor – offence occurred in the home of the girlfriend of the victim – mitigating factors – offence was spontaneous and unplanned – remorse – no special circumstances – importance of general deterrence and punishment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Dylan John Bailey (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T McCarthy (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2016/222546
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 23 July 2016, the offender, Dylan John Bailey, murdered Guy Henderson at a house at Hermitage Flat.
He did so after an argument between them developed into a physical fight. In the course of that fight, the offender punched the deceased to his head and face until he was unconscious. After bystanders attempted to remove the offender from his position on top of the deceased and told him to leave the deceased alone, the offender returned to where the deceased was lying and continued to physically assault him by punching him to the head many times. He then took a toaster from the kitchen bench and struck the deceased in the face with the toaster.
Finally, the offender reached for a large hunting knife which he had brought to the house, and stabbed the deceased several times to the chest. Initially, no penetration occurred, but following the removal of a leather sheath from the knife the offender stabbed the deceased six more times to the torso. This final attack caused death.
The offender was arrested by the police on that evening and has been in custody ever since. When he was before the Bathurst Local Court on 30 October 2017, the offender pleaded guilty. When first arraigned in the Supreme Court on 9 February 2018, he maintained that plea of guilty.
It is now time for the offender to be sentenced for his crime.
The maximum penalty for the offence…

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 Bailey

Details

AGLC: R v Bailey [2018] NSWSC 411
Case: [2018] NSWSC 411
Decision Date: 05 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bailey involved the defendant, Bailey, who was charged with one count of murder. The offence was committed in the home of the girlfriend of the victim. The matter was heard in a higher court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The court had to consider various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's background, and the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate range of sentencing for the offence of murder, considering the defendant's early guilty plea, self-induced intoxication, and diagnosed mental disorders. The court needed to balance the need for general deterrence and punishment against the mitigating factors present in the case. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the offence occurred in the home of the victim's girlfriend constituted an aggravating factor, and whether the spontaneous and unplanned nature of the offence, along with the defendant's remorse, should be considered mitigating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged that the offence of murder was of mid-range seriousness. The defendant's early guilty plea and remorse were considered mitigating factors. However, the court found that the offence occurred in the home of the victim's girlfriend was an aggravating factor. The court also considered the defendant's self-induced intoxication and diagnosed mental disorders, including Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Oppositional Defiance Disorder, but ultimately found that these did not constitute special circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and punishment in reaching its decision.

The court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the mid-range seriousness of the offence, the mitigating factors of the early guilty plea and remorse, and the aggravating factor of the offence occurring in the victim's girlfriend's home. The court did not find any special circumstances to warrant a departure from the normal sentencing range.

Orders