Legal Research
Cases
R v Fyffe

R v Fyffe

Case [2002] NSWSC 751 29 August 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v FYFFE [2002] NSWSC 751 revised - 29/08/2002

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70060/01

HEARING DATE(S): 08/05/02-10/05/02, 13/05/02-17/05/02, 20/05/02-24/05/02, 27/05/02-29/05/02, 25/06/02, 21/08/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 29 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Stanley James FYFFE

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: CC Patrick
Offender: MD Austin

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Offender: Nikola Velcic & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - murder

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 19A
Sentencing Act 1989, s 13A
Sentencing (Criminal Procedure) Act 1989, ss 21, 61

CASES CITED: R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469

DECISION: Offender sentenced to imprisonment for life.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

Thursday, 29 August 2002

70060/01 – REGINA v Stanley James FYFFE
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Stanley James Fyffe, was found guilty by the jury of the murder on 19 March 2000 at Silverwater of Stephen Anthony Moore. At the time of the death of the deceased he, the offender, his co-offender Anthony John Hore and a man I shall call X were prisoners serving their sentences at the Silverwater correctional facility. All were housed in B wing.

2 B wing is one of a number of free-standing brick buildings arranged more or less on a north-south axis. It is the most southerly building and its main entrance is on its north side, facing other blocks. To the south of its southern side is a small yard, bounded to the south by a wire mesh fence behind which are tennis courts and the southern perimeter wall of the complex. The southern side of the wing comprises two walls of equal length which join in the centre in a concave right angle. The wings formed by the walls make the yard a secluded place. Another feature which makes for its seclusion is a flat awning supported on posts and attached to the walls. It is triangular and fits into the corner where the walls meet. It covers only part of the yard. Although the windows of some cells overlook the yard they do not for the most part afford any view of events happening under the awning.

3 In March 2000 inmates used to use the yard for sporting exercises of various kinds. Balls would be thrown and bounced. There was a punching bag hanging on a hook secured to the underside of the awning. Access from the northern side of B wing to the yard at the southern side could be gained by walking round the wing on the eastern or on the western side.

4 The wing lies in a minimum security part of the complex and for the most part inmates housed in it, as well as those housed elsewhere in the complex, had the free run of the wing. They could visit each other’s cells.

5 The deceased shared cell 75 with William Bond. The offender shared cell 70 with William Charlton. Hore occupied cell 72 alone. X shared…

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 Fyffe

Details

AGLC: R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751
Case: [2002] NSWSC 751
Decision Date: 29 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fyffe involved the defendant, Fyffe, who was charged with the murder of an individual. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was on the appropriate sentencing for the crime committed. The court was tasked with determining the severity of the punishment to be imposed on Fyffe, considering the gravity of the offence and relevant legal principles.

The legal issues that the court had to address involved the assessment of the culpability of the defendant and the principles that should guide the imposition of a sentence in a murder case. The court needed to consider various factors, including the circumstances surrounding the crime, the defendant's background, and any mitigating or aggravating factors that might influence the sentence. The central debate was on the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence, while also considering the principles of proportionality and retribution.

The court deliberated on the severity of the crime, acknowledging the heinous nature of the act committed by Fyffe. In its reasoning, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence and serves to uphold the rule of law. The court also took into account the defendant's personal circumstances, including any mitigating factors that might warrant a lesser sentence. Ultimately, the court decided that the appropriate sentence for Fyffe was life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the crime while also considering the need for proportionality and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that Fyffe be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period set by the court. This decision was made in accordance with the legal principles governing murder sentencing and aimed to achieve a just outcome that balanced the needs of justice and society.

Orders