R v Garvey; R v Jones - [2021] NSWSC 1147

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Garvey; R v Jones [2021] NSWSC 1147
Hearing dates: 17 August 2021
Decision date: 29 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Garvey
Imprisonment for 29 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 20 years and 9 months.
Jones
Imprisonment for 28 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 22 years 3 months.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – murder – principal in the first degree – principal in the second degree – machete used to kill victim – home invasion to steal drugs – related offences – three offenders – extended joint criminal enterprise – knowledge of machete and planning of home invasion – objective severity above mid-range – parity – totality – partial accumulation – Bugmy principles applied – discretion to set commencement date – discount for facilitating a shorter trial should ordinarily be lower than discount for plea obviating need for trial – quantification of discount - mitigation for facilitating administration of justice allowed but not quantified

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
R v Fletcher [2020] NSWSC 1478

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Jeremy Josh Garvey (Offender)
Luke Graham Jones (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Rosser QC (Crown)
Mr A M Webb (Garvey)
Mr P Massey (Jones)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors
O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors Pty Ltd

File Number(s): 2018/394882; 2018/396315

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Jeremy Josh Garvey and Luke Graham Jones are to be sentenced for the murder of Phillip Steele at Whitebridge on 17 December 2018. Mr Garvey pleaded guilty and Mr Jones was found guilty by a jury.
The maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life, although in this case the Crown does not suggest that it should be imposed. There is also a standard non-parole period of 20 years.
They have each also pleaded guilty to related offences of stealing from the person and impersonating a police officer with the intention of deceiving. Additionally, Mr Jones pleaded guilty to an offence of driving recklessly and at a speed and manner dangerous to others after not stopping during a police pursuit. The sentences to be imposed for these offences must be within the limits of what could have been imposed by the Local Court where they would otherwise have been finalised (2 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine). There is also a period of disqualification in respect of Mr Jones’ police pursuit offence. Each of the sentences to be imposed for these offences will be reduced on account of the pleas of guilty.

The offences

Phillip Steele was 60 years old and lived with his brothers, Gary and Trevor, in a house in Lonus Avenue, Whitebridge, a southern suburb of Newcastle. Gary was very unwell and got about with the aid of a walker. He has since passed away.^[1]
1. Jones’ trial, tcpt, 1 March 2021, p…

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 Garvey; R v Jones 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: [2021] NSWSC 1147
Decision Date: 29 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Garvey and Jones, were charged with the murder of a victim during a home invasion aimed at stealing drugs. The case involved an extended joint criminal enterprise with three offenders. Garvey was found to be a principal in the first degree, while Jones was a principal in the second degree. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining their sentences. The legal issues before the court encompassed the severity of the offence, the role of each respondent in the crime, and the appropriate sentence considering various sentencing principles, including the Bugmy principles, and the discounts applicable for facilitating the administration of justice.

The court examined the severity of the offence, finding it to be above the mid-range due to the use of a machete and the premeditated nature of the home invasion. It assessed the roles of Garvey and Jones, noting Garvey's significant involvement in planning and knowing about the machete, which made him a principal in the first degree. Jones, while also involved, played a less central role, and was accordingly classified as a principal in the second degree. The court applied the principles of parity, totality, and partial accumulation to ensure the sentences reflected the respective roles and contributions of each respondent. It considered the Bugmy principles to ensure the sentences were proportionate and reflected the severity of the crime.

In determining the appropriate sentences, the court applied a discount for facilitating a shorter trial, noting that this discount should ordinarily be lower than that for a plea that obviates the need for a trial. The court also allowed for mitigation in recognition of the respondents' facilitation of the administration of justice but did not quantify this discount. Ultimately, the court set the sentences, taking into account the severity of the crime, the roles of the respondents, and the mitigating factors. The final orders of the court reflected the careful balancing of these considerations.

Orders