Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Khan Law & Associates (Offender)
File Number(s):
2021/365075
Publication restriction:
See [3]
JUDGMENT
The offender, Jacob Borja, is before the court for sentence for one count of manslaughter contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act) for which the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment and for which there is no standard non-parole period, and two counts of reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment and for which there is a standard non-parole period of 3 years.
Mr Borja was 18 years old at the time of the offending, which occurred during a fight amongst two groups of males at Whalan Reserve, Whalan on 23 December 2021. Mr Borja pleaded guilty to these counts on 9 October 2023, which was the first day of his trial.
[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 Borja
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Borja [2024] NSWSC 44
Case
[2024] NSWSC 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Borja, pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the first day of trial for the death of the deceased. The dispute involved sentencing, specifically whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately consider Borja's mental health issues and his background of deprivation when assessing his moral culpability and determining the appropriate sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's failure to adequately consider the appellant's mental health issues and background of deprivation constituted a significant error in the sentencing process. The court had to determine whether such considerations could have influenced the moral culpability assessment and, consequently, the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court examined the extent to which the youth of the offender should have been factored into the sentencing decision.
The court held that the trial judge's failure to adequately consider Borja's mental health and background of deprivation was indeed a significant error. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account the offender's mental state and social circumstances when assessing moral culpability and determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently weighed these factors, which could have impacted the sentence imposed. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the original sentence, and remitted the matter to the trial judge for resentencing. The court provided detailed guidelines on how the trial judge should consider the appellant's mental health and background of deprivation in the resentencing process.