R v Evans (No 3) - [2017] NSWSC 1523

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Evans (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1523
Hearing dates: 30 June & 12 October 2017
Decision date: 10 November 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 48 years with a non-parole period of 36 years.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – victim attacked whilst bound and defenceless – weapon used to inflict severe blunt head injury – intended to kill – not within extreme category requiring life sentence, but very close

CRIME – sentence – other offences – rural homes targeted at night when occupants most vulnerable – offender armed with weapon – one break enter and steal in circumstances of special aggravation close to the top of the range of objective seriousness and one well above the mid-range – former causing a fractured skull and bruising to the brain – three detain without consent to obtain advantage whilst in company (one also occasioning actual bodily harm) well above the mid-range
CRIME – sentence – offender’s personal circumstances – link between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and subsequent drug addiction – moral culpability reduced for breaking and entering to steal, but not for violence – no remorse – no mitigating factors in s 21A(3) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 present – no special circumstances – aggregate sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 19A, 86, 112
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 61
Cases Cited: R v Sinclair [2017] NSWSC 686
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Ryan David Evans
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Maxwell QC (Crown)
Mr R Webb (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Criminal Defence Group

File Number(s): 2014/309094

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Ryan David Evans ("the offender") appears today for sentence in respect of a number of extremely serious offences after he was found guilty by a jury on 30 May 2017.
Each offence is contrary to provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The details are as follows:

Count

Offence

Provision

At Badgerys Creek on 30 May 2014

1

Murder of Keith Cini

s 18(1)(a); s 19A

Maximum: Life

SNPP 20 years

3

Break, enter and steal in circumstances of special aggravation, namely being in company and intentionally wounding Luciana Boldi

s 112(3)

Maximum: 25 years

SNPP 7 years

At Medway on 28 April 2014

4

Break, enter and steal in circumstances of special aggravation, namely being in company and intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on Brett Delamont

s 112(3)

Maximum: 25 years

SNPP 7 years

5

Detain Alana Bush without her consent with intent to obtain an advantage, namely a financial advantage, while in company

s 86(2)(a)

Maximum: 20 years

6

Detain Kirby Delamont without her consent with intent to obtain an advantage, namely a financial advantage, while in company

s 86(2)(a)

Maximum: 20 years

7

Detain Jack Lisle without his consent with intent to obtain an advantage, namely a financial advantage, while in company and occasioning actual bodily harm

s 86(3)

Maximum: 25 years

Count…

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 Evans (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Evans (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1523
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1523
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Evans (No 3), the appellant was convicted of multiple serious offences, including murder and various counts of break and enter, steal, and detain without consent. The victim was attacked while bound and defenceless, resulting in a severe blunt head injury that was intended to cause death. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the offender's personal circumstances. The legal issues before the court included the classification of the murder offence in terms of its seriousness, the objective seriousness of the other offences, and the impact of the appellant's personal circumstances on his moral culpability.

The court examined the murder offence and found that, while it was not within the extreme category requiring a life sentence, it was very close. The court then turned to the other offences, assessing their objective seriousness. The break and enter to steal offences were considered to be close to the top of the range for objective seriousness, particularly given the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim. The detain without consent offences were deemed to be well above the mid-range due to their nature and the appellant's use of a weapon. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, noting a link between his Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and subsequent drug addiction. However, the court found that this did not reduce his moral culpability for the violent offences, and there were no mitigating factors present under section 21A(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The court ultimately determined that the aggregate sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the appellant's personal circumstances. The court found that the appellant had not shown remorse for his actions and that there were no special circumstances that warranted a departure from the general principles of sentencing. The final orders of the court were not specified in the text provided, but it can be inferred that the appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for his convictions.

Orders