R v Fletcher - [2020] NSWSC 1478

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fletcher [2020] NSWSC 1478
Hearing dates: 29 September 2020
Decision date: 23 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 15 years with a non-parole period of 11 years 3 months

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – murder – extended joint criminal enterprise – targeted home invasion to rob elderly man – brutal and sustained attack – offender young, immature, remorseful – early plea and assistance to authorities despite fear of co-offender – concurrency with revoked ICO

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Fletcher (a pseudonym)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr SC (Crown)
Ms S Hall (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission

File Number(s): 2018/390848

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: A person who I will be referring to by the pseudonym "Fletcher" has pleaded guilty and is to be sentenced for the murder of Mr Phillip Steele.
Phillip Steele was 60 years old and lived with his brothers, Gary and Trevor, in Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge, a southern suburb of Newcastle. Mr Steele was killed in their home in horrific circumstances in the early hours of Monday 17 December 2018.
Murder is punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. There is also a standard non-parole period, which in the circumstances of this case is 20 years.

Facts

The facts upon which Mr Fletcher is to be sentenced have been largely set out in an "agreed facts" document. It is a challenging document in that it unnecessarily includes a substantial amount of information that has no direct bearing upon Mr Fletcher's offending. The following is an attempt to distill what is relevant. It is supplemented by reference to what the offender told police in an interview and what he said in evidence at the sentence hearing.
There are two co-offenders, Jeremy Josh Garvey and another. Mr Garvey has pleaded guilty and is to be sentenced separately and later. The other man is awaiting trial. The present offender has undertaken to give evidence for the prosecution. That is the reason for referring to him by way of a pseudonym. I will also anonymise the other person and refer to him as "Thompson".
Mr Steele worked for many years as a cement renderer. He also supplied small amounts of cannabis from his home. I have mentioned that he lived with his two brothers, Trevor and Gary Steele.
Sometime on the weekend of 15-16 December 2018, Jeremy Garvey told a witness that he "wanted to do Phil's". He and Thompson went to the deceased's home early on the Sunday afternoon and, by means of a ruse, they stole his wallet. Fletcher was not present and there is no suggestion he had any knowledge of this.
Later that night, after having lost an unstated amount of money gambling on poker machines, Garvey again spoke of carrying out a robbery: acquiring drugs without paying for them and "running through old bud's house". The offender was not present during this conversation.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Fletcher and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 1478
Decision Date: 23 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fletcher involved a defendant charged with murder, arising from a planned home invasion targeting an elderly man. The defendant, alongside co-offenders, intended to rob the victim but the attack escalated into a brutal and sustained assault resulting in the victim’s death. Despite his young age and immaturity, the defendant pleaded guilty early and provided substantial assistance to authorities, demonstrating remorse and despite his fear of co-offenders. The court had to consider the nature of the crime, the role of the defendant within the extended joint criminal enterprise, and mitigating factors such as his age, immaturity, and cooperation with the authorities.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing for the defendant in light of his participation in the extended joint criminal enterprise and the escalation of violence during the home invasion. The court needed to balance the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant’s age, remorse, early plea, and assistance to authorities. Additionally, the court had to address the principle of concurrency in sentencing, particularly considering the defendant's involvement in the crime and the potential impact of a revoked Intensive Corrections Order (ICO).

The court, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged the gravity of the crime and the defendant’s significant role in the extended joint criminal enterprise. However, it also considered the defendant’s age, immaturity, early plea, and substantial assistance to authorities. The court determined that while the crime was severe, the mitigating factors warranted a degree of leniency. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the defendant’s culpability while also considering the principles of justice and proportionality. The court also addressed the issue of concurrency with the revoked ICO, ensuring that the overall sentence was just and appropriate.

The final orders of the court reflected a balanced approach, imposing a sentence that recognised the defendant's culpability but also took into account his age, remorse, and cooperation with authorities. The sentence was structured to ensure that the defendant would receive appropriate punishment while also considering the need for rehabilitation and deterrence. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender in the sentencing process.

Orders