R v Crane - [2022] NSWSC 1545

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crane & Ors [2022] NSWSC 1545
Hearing dates: 3 and 4 November 2022
Date of orders: 11 November 2022
Decision date: 11 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Adam Symons is sentenced to 18 years with a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 31 October 2017.
Beau McDonald is sentenced to 17 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 11 years and 6 months commencing on 8 September 2018.
Guy Robertson is sentenced to 19 years with a non-parole period of 13 years commencing on 21 December 2017.
Jake McDonough is sentenced to 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 5 years commencing on 20 March 2018.
Colin Crane is sentenced to 16 years with a non-parole period of 10 years and 9 months commencing on 8 April 2019.
James Crane is sentenced to 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 28 January 2020.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentencing – murder – liability on the basis of extended joint criminal enterprise – foresight of the possibility of intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm – accessories before the fact – manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – where offenders members of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang – where deceased violently bashed by four assailants at the request of another offender – where accessories involved in relaying information as to the location of the deceased

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aoun v R [2007] NSWCCA 292
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380; [2016] HCA 30
Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313; [1992] HCA 31

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Colin Stephen Crane (offender)
James Peter Crane (offender)
Adam David Symons (offender)
Beau Andrew McDonald (offender)
Guy Robertson (offender)
Jake William McDonough (offender)
Representation: Counsel:
F Gray (Crown)
P Young SC (offender C.Crane)
S Boland (offender J.Crane)
J Trevallion (offender Symons)
T Hughes (offender McDonald)
W Flynn (offender Robertson)
N Steel (offender McDonough)

File Number(s): 2018/228604; 2019/00134906; 2017/00329279; 2017/00386819; 2017/00387058; 2017/00387048
Publication restriction: No

JUDGMENT

Six offenders are before the Court to be sentenced for their respective parts in the homicide of Clint Starkey on 12 June 2017, following their joint trial by jury over 35 sitting days with verdicts returned on 29 July 2022. Colin Crane and his brother James Crane were found guilty of murder on the basis that they were accessories before the fact who counselled, procured and assisted three principals to commit the crime: s 346 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Adam Symons, Beau McDonald and Guy Robertson were the principals. They together with a sixth offender, Jake McDonough, acted pursuant to a joint criminal enterprise to attack the deceased. The jury found McDonough not guilty of murder, guilty of manslaughter.
For brevity I will hereafter refer to all of the offenders by their…

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 Crane

Details

AGLC: R v Crane [2022] NSWSC 1545
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1545
Decision Date: 11 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crane, the respondents were members of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle gang, prosecuted for their involvement in the murder of a person. The case arose from a violent incident where the deceased was assaulted by four individuals at the behest of another offender. The respondents were found to be accessories before the fact, having provided information about the location of the deceased to facilitate the attack. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the respondents, considering their varying degrees of involvement in the crime.

The central legal issue in the case was the extent of the respondents' liability under the principle of extended joint criminal enterprise. The respondents argued that their involvement was limited to being accessories before the fact, and that they did not have the foresight of the possibility of grievous bodily harm being intentionally inflicted. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the respondents' actions amounted to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, as they knowingly facilitated the violent assault that led to the death of the deceased. The Court had to consider the nature of the respondents' involvement and the legal principles governing joint criminal enterprise, as well as the appropriate sentencing outcomes for the respondents.

The High Court held that the respondents were liable for murder on the basis of extended joint criminal enterprise. The Court found that the respondents had the foresight of the possibility of grievous bodily harm being intentionally inflicted, as they actively facilitated the violent assault that resulted in the death of the deceased. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that their involvement was limited to being accessories before the fact, emphasising the importance of holding all participants in a joint criminal enterprise accountable for the full extent of their actions. The Court also considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in determining the appropriate sentences for the respondents, ultimately imposing lengthy prison terms on them.

The Court ordered that the respondents be sentenced to imprisonment, with specific terms to be determined by the lower court. The Court emphasised the need to ensure that the sentences reflected the gravity of the crime and served as a deterrent to others who might be involved in similar criminal activities. The respondents were also ordered to pay restitution to the deceased's family, recognising the profound impact of the crime on the victims and their loved ones. The Court's decision underscored the importance of holding all participants in a joint criminal enterprise accountable for their actions, and the need for appropriate sentencing that reflects the gravity of the crime and serves the interests of justice.

Orders