Legal Research
Cases
R v Early (No 8)

R v Early (No 8)

Case [2023] NSWSC 1222 20 October 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Early (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 1222
Hearing dates: 29 September 2023
Date of orders: 20 October 2023
Decision date: 20 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
(1) The offender is convicted.
(2) I impose a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 15 years and 6 months, commencing on 8 October 2021, and expiring on 7 April 2037, with a balance of term of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment. The total of term is 22 years imprisonment. The offender will be eligible for parole on 7 April 2037.
(3) In compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to the offender. I direct that the offender’s legal representatives advise him of the existence of the Act and its application to this offence.
(4) I recommend that Stanley Bruce Early be detained at Long Bay Hospital so that his mental health needs can be addressed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Sentence — Murder – Intention to cause really serious bodily harm — Historical offending in 1987 — Where the offender was a party to a joint criminal enterprise to assault the deceased with an intention to cause really serious bodily harm — Where the offence is motivated by hatred for and prejudice against homosexual men — Victim’s family experienced decades of grief and suffering — Regard to sentencing patterns at the time of the offending

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 19
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Life Sentences) Amendment Act 1989 (NSW), s 19A
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A(2)(h), 21B(1), 61(1)

Cases Cited:
Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
Kochai v R [2023] NSWCCA 116
R v Anthony Robert Williams [2005] NSWCCA 99
R v Calleja (Supreme Court (NSW), Slattery AJ, 19 July 1991, unrep)
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Katsis [2018] NSWCCA 9
R v Livermore (Supreme Court (NSW), Hunt CJ at CL, 30 November 1992, unrep)
R v McAuliffe & Ors (Supreme Court (NSW), Wood J, 7 August 1992, unrep)
R v Mihailovic; R v Howard; R v Morgan; R v Young (Supreme Court (NSW), Badgery-Parker J, 15 April 1991, unrep)
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368; [2002] NSWCCA 129
R v Neale [2004] NSWCCA 311; (2004) 148 A Crim R 493
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39
R v RLP [2009] VSCA 271; (2009) 213 A Crim R 461
R v Walker [2023] NSWCCA 219
R v White [2022] NSWSC 525
R v White [2023] NSWSC 611
Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Stanley Bruce Early (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay SC (Crown)
T D Anderson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of…

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 Early (No 8)

Details

AGLC: R v Early (No 8) [2023] NSWSC 1222
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1222
Decision Date: 20 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Early (No 8), the appellant was convicted of murder for his involvement in the assault of a person in 1987. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant had been part of a joint criminal enterprise with others, where they assaulted the victim with the intention to cause really serious bodily harm. The offence was motivated by hatred and prejudice against homosexual men, and the victim’s family had experienced decades of grief and suffering as a result of the attack.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether the trial judge had erred in failing to take into account the appellant’s role in the offence, and whether the sentencing patterns at the time of the offending should be considered. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had not appropriately considered his role in the joint criminal enterprise.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant’s role in the joint criminal enterprise. The court found that the appellant had played a significant role in the offence, and that the trial judge had appropriately considered this in imposing sentence. The court also found that while the offence was motivated by hatred and prejudice, this did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The court held that the sentencing patterns at the time of the offending were not relevant to the sentence imposed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and the need for general and specific deterrence in imposing sentence. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the impact of the offence on the victim and their family in imposing sentence.

Orders