R v C Shedden - [2012] NSWSC 854

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v C Shedden [2012] NSWSC 854
Hearing dates: 6/07/2012
Decision date: 03 August 2012
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
For the murder of Joshua Maynard - imprisonment for 27 years commencing on 13 July 2011 comprising a non-parole period of 20 years expiring on 12 July 2031 and a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 12 July 2038.
For the offence of possessing a shortened firearm contrary to s 62(1)(b) of the Firearms Act 1996 - a fixed term of 12 months to commence on 13 July 2011.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - violent confrontation between two groups of young men - shotgun discharged at unarmed person - objective seriousness of offending extremely high - aggravating features
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Forbes [2011] NSWSC 1547
R v J Shedden [2012] NSWSC 759
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Chad Ross Shedden (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
L Carr (Crown)
C Davenport SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bilias & Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/227992

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: On 31 May 2012 the offender was convicted by a jury of the murder of Joshua Maynard at Raymond Terrace.

A standard non-parole period of 20 years applies to murder as provided in Div 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The deceased died as a result of a single shotgun wound to his chest after he emerged from the front seat of a car that was driven by one of his friends into a suburban street in Raymond Terrace at around midnight on 29 June 2010. The shooting was the culmination of a series of violent encounters during the course of the night between two groups of boys and young men, the offender leading one group with the active assistance of his brother, and the deceased leading the other group which included his younger brother, Thomas.

The offender's brother, John Shedden, pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of his participation in a joint criminal enterprise to assault the deceased (and those in his company) where the intended victims of those assaults were exposed to an appreciable risk of suffering serious injury (R v Shedden [2012] NSWSC 759). He did not give evidence at the offender's trial. Daniel Forbes, another member of the offender's group, also pleaded guilty to manslaughter on a similar basis. He gave evidence for the Crown pursuant to an undertaking which attracted a discount on sentence (R v Forbes [2011] NSWSC 1547). Others associated with the offender also gave evidence for the Crown: Bradley White gave evidence with the benefit of an immunity from prosecution from the Attorney-General and AB under a certificate issued pursuant to s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995. The deceased's brother was also called by the Crown as were three other…

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 C Shedden

Details

AGLC: R v C Shedden [2012] NSWSC 854
Case: [2012] NSWSC 854
Decision Date: 03 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, C Shedden, was convicted of murder following a violent confrontation between two groups of young men. A shotgun was discharged at an unarmed person, resulting in death. Shedden appealed against his sentence. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The appeal centred on the objective seriousness of the offending and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the aggravating features of the crime.

The Court of Appeal noted that the objective seriousness of the offending was extremely high. The appellant had engaged in a violent confrontation with a group of young men, during which he discharged a shotgun at an unarmed person, resulting in their death. The Court held that the trial judge had appropriately considered the aggravating features of the crime, including the nature of the confrontation, the use of a dangerous weapon, and the fact that the victim was unarmed. The Court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not manifestly inadequate, as it reflected the gravity of the offence and the appellant's role in it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against sentence. The Court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and reflected the objective seriousness of the offending and the aggravating features of the crime. The Court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The appellant's appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

Orders