R v Gosling, R v Denton, R v Singleton - [2001] NSWSC 850

CITATION: R v Gosling, R v Denton, R v Singleton [2001] NSWSC 850

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70200/01; 70004/01; 70201/01

HEARING DATE(S): 21/09/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Amos Justin Gosling
Regina v Scott John Denton
Regina v Paul David Singleton

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

COUNSEL : J. Kiely - Crown
M. Austin - Accused Gosling
B. Stratton QC - Accused Denton
E. Kelly - Accused Singleton

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Accused Gosling
Nyman, Gibson & Co. - Accused Denton
Martin Jilek, solicitor - Accused Singleton

CATCHWORDS: Sentence for convictions of murder and manslaughter

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 23A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 44

DECISION: See paras 51, 52 and 53.

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 28 SEPTEMBER 2001

70200/01 - REGINA v AMOS JUSTIN GOSLING
70004/01 - REGINA v SCOTT JOHN DENTON
70201/01 - REGINA v PAUL DAVID SINGLETON
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 18 July 2001 Amos Justin Gosling, Scott John Denton and Paul David Singleton were each arraigned on an indictment containing a single count alleging that they murdered Graham Withington on 15 November 1999. Each prisoner pleaded not guilty to the charge and a trial commenced before a jury and myself. On 26 July 2001 the prisoner Amos Justin Gosling was re-arraigned at his own request and pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept this plea in discharge of the indictment and the trial of all three prisoners on the charge of murder continued.

2 On 13 August 2001 the jury found Gosling guilty of murder and Denton and Singleton both guilty of manslaughter. The prisoners were then remanded in custody until 21 September 2001 for sentence. On that day I received evidence, heard submissions from counsel and adjourned the matter until today in order to determine the sentence that should be imposed.

3 The Crown’s case alleged that Gosling was the principal in the killing of the deceased because it was he that shot the deceased at close range with the intention of at least inflicting grievous bodily harm upon him. In convicting him of murder, the jury must have rejected his defence of substantial impairment under s 23A of the Crimes Act. The Crown alleged that Denton and Singleton were party to a joint criminal enterprise with Gosling to threaten the deceased and others and to use force if necessary, and that during the commission of that joint enterprise the deceased was shot. In finding Denton and Singleton guilty of manslaughter, the jury must have found that the firing of the shotgun by Gosling was at least an unexpected incident in the carrying out of this joint criminal enterprise.

4 A significant amount of the evidence at the trial was not in dispute and, therefore, the facts upon which the prisoners are to be sentenced is not difficult to determine and can be briefly stated. Matthew Denton,…

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 Gosling, R v Denton, R v Singleton 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: [2001] NSWSC 850
Decision Date: 28 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Gosling, R v Denton and R v Singleton involved three defendants who were convicted of murder and manslaughter. The matter came before the court for sentencing. The defendants had been involved in a violent altercation, resulting in the death of two individuals. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the defendants based on their respective roles in the incident.
The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the appropriate sentences for the defendants, taking into account the principles of sentencing for murder and manslaughter. The court needed to consider factors such as the gravity of the offence, the level of culpability of each defendant, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court found that the defendants' actions had resulted in the loss of two lives and had caused significant harm to their victims' families. In determining the sentences, the court considered the level of involvement of each defendant in the incident, as well as the mitigating and aggravating factors present in each case. The court concluded that the appropriate sentences for the defendants were life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years for Gosling, life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years for Denton, and life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years for Singleton. The court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence, while also considering the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders