R v Honeysett (No 2) (Sentence) - [2023] NSWSC 103

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Honeysett (No 2) (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 103
Hearing dates: 13 and 14 February 2023
Date of orders: 14 February 2023
Decision date: 14 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Mr Honeysett is sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months commencing on 10 October 2020 and expiring on 9 April 2022, with a non-parole period of 1 year commencing on 10 October 2020 and expiring on 9 October 2021.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – attempted robbery in company – cognitively impaired offender – limited role in planning – significant role in attack – use of weapons – serious example of robbery in company – where victim died of stab wounds inflicted by co-offender – where murder charge withdrawn on entry of plea – death of victim disregarded in sentencing – sentencing discount – prescriptive statutory scheme – prosecution concession accepted – 25% discount allowed – deprivation and intellectual disability – “scandalous neglect of young Indigenous people” – reduction in moral culpability – parity – where second co-offender received intensive correction order on undertaking to assist prosecution – same starting point appropriate – where offender in custody awaiting murder trial for over two years – full time custodial sentence only appropriate disposition – backdating sentence – time served sufficient

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 NSW, s 97(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 10A, 25D, 25E

Cases Cited:
Black v R [2022] NSWCCA 17
Bresnahan v R [2022] NSWCCA 288
Green v R [2022] NSWCCA 230
Ke v R [2021] NSWCCA 177
R v Camilleri [2021] NSWSC 221
R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Honeysett [2023] NSWSC 76
R v Rifai [2022] NSWDC 74
R v Tailford(No 2) [2021] NSWSC 695
Regina v Darrell Terry McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jye Honeysett (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Baumgarten (Crown)
R Mathur SC (Honeysett)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Rex)
Ryan Paten Le (Honeysett)

File Number(s): 2020/26533

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

On 13 February 2023, before the commencement of a voir dire concerning the admissibility of an electronically recorded interview (“ERISP”), Jye Honeysett entered a plea of guilty to a count that on 11 September 2020 at Griffith, he attempted to rob Sayed Sajjed Mousawi of a Honda motor car whilst in the company of Simon Carberry and Tearna O’Hanlon.
The indictment contained another count, being an allegation of murder of Mr Mousawi, to which Mr Honeysett had previously pleaded not guilty. The Prosecutor indicated that the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) accepted the plea to the second count (the attempted robbery in company), in full discharge of the indictment. I formally convicted Mr Honeysett of the attempted robbery charge and discharged…

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 Honeysett (No 2) (Sentence) 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: [2023] NSWSC 103
Decision Date: 14 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Honeysett (No 2), the defendant was sentenced following a series of charges related to an attempted robbery in company where the victim died of stab wounds. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for Honeysett, who played a significant role in the attack despite his limited involvement in the planning stages. The court had to consider his cognitive impairment, his role in the attack, the use of weapons, and the gravity of the offence, which resulted in the victim's death.

The court addressed the appropriate discount for Honeysett's cognitive impairment and the circumstances of the crime. It was determined that Honeysett's role in the attack warranted a significant discount due to his limited involvement in the planning. The prosecution accepted a 25% discount for his cognitive impairment, which the court considered appropriate. The court also noted the disparity in sentencing between Honeysett and his co-offender, who received an intensive correction order, and decided that parity in sentencing was necessary. Given Honeysett's full-time custody awaiting a murder trial for over two years, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was the only appropriate disposition.

The court imposed a sentence on Honeysett, which was backdated to the date of his arrest. The total sentence was determined to be sufficient to account for the time Honeysett had already served in custody. The court's decision was based on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the crime, Honeysett's role, his cognitive impairment, and the need for parity in sentencing with his co-offender. The final order was that Honeysett's sentence would be backdated, and he would serve the remainder of his sentence after accounting for the time already served.

Orders