R v BL - [2024] NSWSC 51

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51
Hearing dates: 12 December 2023, 30 January 2024
Date of orders: 6 February 2024
Decision date: 06 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 15 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 10 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME — sentencing — murder — juvenile offender — plea of guilty — youth gang bashing of child — assault captured on video and posted on social media — offence of great seriousness — reduced moral culpability on account of background and immaturity of youth — remorseful — reasonable prospects of rehabilitation — special circumstances to allow for parole flexibility as offender matures

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) ss 6, 19(1), Pt 3 Div 4
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), s 44(2)

Cases Cited:
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007
R v SLD [2002] NSWSC 758
R v SLD (2003) 58 NSWLR 589; [2003] NSWCCA 310

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
BL (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
N Steel (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Guirguis Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 223946/2021

JUDGMENT

BL is a child who is to be sentenced for the murder of Jason Galleghan at Doonside on 4 August 2021.
Murder is a “serious children’s indictable offence” which must be dealt with according to law rather than under Pt 3, Div 4 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).^[1]
1. Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, s 3(1), s 17
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. Standard non-parole periods do not apply where the offender is a child.
I have previously sentenced a co-offender who was also a child: R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007. Because of the similarities between the two cases these sentencing remarks will replicate quite a deal of what I said then. As in that case, for reasons I have discussed with counsel, this judgment has no value as a comparator aside from consideration of parity of sentencing of co-offenders.

The offence

The following account of the way in which the murder occurred is taken from a statement of agreed facts signed by the offender and his lawyer. Police seized people’s phones upon arrest and subsequent examination of their content, including three videos of the assault upon the deceased, has enabled precise nomination of the time at which, or period over which, various events occurred.
The offender was aged 15 years and 1 month at the time of the murder. The deceased, Jason Galleghan, was aged 16.^[2]
2. There has been consent to the publication of the deceased child’s name pursuant to s 15E of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act
The offender had the deceased’s phone number saved in his phone with the name, “Jason De Fuckhead”.
The critical events occurred in a house at Perigee Close, Doonside.…

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 BL

Details

AGLC: R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51
Case: [2024] NSWSC 51
Decision Date: 06 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, BL, was convicted of murder following a violent assault on a child which resulted in the child's death. The incident, perpetrated by a youth gang, was captured on video and subsequently shared on social media. BL pleaded guilty to the offence and the matter proceeded to sentencing in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution sought a sentence reflecting the gravity of the crime, while the defence argued for a sentence that took into account BL's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the seriousness of the crime with the mitigating factors presented by the defence. The key issues were the assessment of moral culpability, the impact of BL's background and age, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court also needed to consider the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

In delivering the sentence, the judge acknowledged the extreme violence of the assault and the heinous nature of the crime. However, the court recognised that BL's youth and the circumstances of the offence warranted a reduced sentence. The judge found that BL's background, including exposure to a troubled environment and potential susceptibility to peer pressure, contributed to a diminished moral culpability. Additionally, the court considered BL's remorse and the reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The sentence imposed included a period of imprisonment with special provisions to allow for parole flexibility as BL matures. The court aimed to ensure that the sentence would facilitate BL's rehabilitation while adequately reflecting the seriousness of the crime.

Orders