R v Graham Anthony George Sloane - [2017] NSWSC 152

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Graham Anthony George Sloane [2017] NSWSC 152
Hearing dates: 24 February 2017
Date of orders: 02 March 2017
Decision date: 02 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 24 years.
That sentence comprises a non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 12 November 2014 and expiring on 11 November 2032, with a balance of term of 6 years, expiring on 11 November 2038.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – murder – s 18 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – multiple stab wounds causing death - plea of not guilty – question of partial defence of substantial impairment at trial – defence rejected by jury - question of continuing relevance of mental illness – question of moral culpability - offender with history of violence – no evidence of motive - breach of conditional liberty – relevance of advanced age
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 205 A Crim R 1
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Graham Anthony Sloane [2000] NSWSC 1300
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v McLean [2001] NSWCCA 58; 121 A Crim 484
R v Quatami [2001] NSWCCA 35; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Graham Anthony George Sloane
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Ms J Manuel SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mandy Hull (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/334584
Publication restriction: None.

Judgment

On the evening of Remembrance Day 2014 Renee Mitchell was violently murdered for reasons that will probably never be truly known to either her family, or to this Court. Graham Anthony George Sloane was indicted for her murder, and found guilty of that crime by a jury on 9 February 2017. He now stands for sentence.
Section 19A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) provides a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for murder. The Table to Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) fixes a standard non-parole period of 20 years. These are the statutory guideposts that the Court must take into account, along with the other facts and circumstances relevant to the assessment of sentence.
Murder attracts such a severe maximum sentence because it is regarded as a most serious crime. The reason for that was poignantly illustrated in this case by the victim impact statement read to the Court during the sentence proceedings on 24 February 2017, demonstrating as that statement did, the great and enduring harm done when a member of the community is murdered.
The offender having been found guilty of Mrs…

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 Graham Anthony George Sloane 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: [2017] NSWSC 152
Decision Date: 02 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of the murder of his girlfriend, for which he was sentenced to a life imprisonment term. The offender pleaded not guilty to the murder charge, and his defence was based on the partial defence of substantial impairment. The jury rejected the defence, finding that the appellant was fully aware of his actions and understood their wrongfulness at the time of the offence. The offender had a history of violence and had previously been convicted of assault. The offender was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence, having been released from prison on parole. The offender had a history of mental illness, and the court was required to determine the continuing relevance of this factor in assessing the offender's moral culpability. The court held that the offender's advanced age, at 67 years, did not mitigate his culpability. The court found that the offender's history of violence and lack of evidence of motive supported a lengthy sentence. The court also considered the breach of conditional liberty as an aggravating factor.

The legal issues before the court were the continuing relevance of the offender's mental illness in assessing his moral culpability and the relevance of his age in mitigating his culpability. The court held that the offender's history of mental illness was not a continuing factor in his moral culpability, as he had not demonstrated any evidence of ongoing impairment at the time of the offence. The court also held that the offender's advanced age did not mitigate his culpability, as age alone did not reduce his moral culpability for the offence. The court found that the offender's history of violence and lack of evidence of motive supported a lengthy sentence. The court also considered the breach of conditional liberty as an aggravating factor. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate, taking into account all the relevant factors. The offender's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders