R v Grogan - [2013] NSWSC 1643

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Grogan [2013] NSWSC 1643
Hearing dates: 8 November 2013
Decision date: 08 November 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 24 years with a non-parole period of 18 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - single punch - intent to cause grievous bodily harm - seriousness aggravated by victim being elderly and offence occurring in victim's home - conviction after trial - importance of general deterrence - few favourable subjective circumstances of offender
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Jason Mark Grogan
Representation: Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr C Smith (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Barraclough Jones & Associates

File Number(s): 2012/17224

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Jason Mark Grogan ("the offender") stands for sentence for the crime of murder. On 10 January 2012 at Gloucester, he seriously assaulted a 72 year old man, Mr Alan Henry. Mr Henry suffered significant brain damage, was hospitalised, and sadly died on 19 April 2012. The offender was found guilty by a jury in a trial at Port Macquarie last August.

The crime of murder is punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. There is a standard non-parole period of 20 years. It has not been suggested that this is a case where the maximum penalty should be imposed. But it, and the standard non-parole period, are relevant as guideposts to be considered alongside all of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Facts

Mr Henry lived in a house in Gregson Street, Gloucester. He had been living there alone since his partner passed away in early 2010. At some stage in about early 2011 Mr Henry became acquainted with Natasha Slacke. She assumed a part-time carer role for him, doing chores such as shopping and house cleaning in return for payment. She lived at Port Stephens with her boyfriend, the offender.

Sometime during the first half of 2011 the offender began to accompany Ms Slacke on her trips to Gloucester. The trio socialised together by going to local hotels. In mid-2011, Mr Henry was hospitalised for about a fortnight following eye surgery. The offender and Ms Slacke stayed at his home in order to take care of his dogs.

A day or two after Mr Henry returned home from hospital there was what was described as "a big argument". A neighbour heard him tell the offender to "get out and don't come back". Ms Slacke continued to visit him but the offender was effectively barred from entering the home. He would drive Ms Slacke there and pick her up later.

On 10 January 2012, the offender and Ms Slacke travelled from Port Stephens to Gloucester in order for her to visit Mr Henry. At about 4.30pm to 5.00pm they were at a service station about 250 metres from Mr Henry's home. They were seen by a number of witnesses to be engaged in a very heated argument.…

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 Grogan

Details

AGLC: R v Grogan [2013] NSWSC 1643
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1643
Decision Date: 08 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grogan involved the appellant, Grogan, who was convicted of murder following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Grogan was found guilty of delivering a single punch to an elderly man, resulting in the victim's death. The dispute centred on the level of culpability attributable to Grogan's actions and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing for murder, particularly in relation to the intent behind Grogan's actions and the gravity of the offence. The Court had to consider whether the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime, which was exacerbated by the victim's advanced age and the fact that the incident occurred in the victim's home. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the sentence adequately balanced Grogan's limited mitigating factors against the need for general deterrence.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal determined that while there were few mitigating factors in Grogan's case, the trial judge had appropriately considered these in the sentencing process. The Court found that the trial judge had given due weight to the objective circumstances of the offence, particularly the vulnerability of the victim and the home invasion aspect. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, considering both the need for general deterrence and the limited personal circumstances of Grogan. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's approach.

The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were to affirm the conviction of Grogan for murder and to uphold the sentence imposed by the trial judge, rejecting the appeal in its entirety. The Court's decision underscored the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender in the sentencing of serious crimes such as murder.

Orders