R v Horan - [2008] NSWSC 990

CITATION: R v Horan [2008] NSWSC 990

HEARING DATE(S): 25-29 August, 1-10 September 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 September 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal List

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert AJ

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a non parole period of four years commencing on 17 July 2006 and expiring on 16 July 2010. Balance of the term of the sentence to commence immediately thereafter for a further two years to expire on 16 July 2012. The first date upon which the offender is to become eligible to be released on parole is 16 July 2010.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Firearms Act

CASES CITED: R v Charman [2007] NSWSC 1177
R v Oinonen (1999) NSWCCA 310
R v Cardoso (2003) 137 A Crim R 535
R v Sukkar (2007) 172 A Crim R 151
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA, unreported, 12 December 1995)

PARTIES: Regina v Zethan Horan

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/5112

COUNSEL: P. Barnett SC (Crown)
P. Boulten SC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Giddy & Crittenden Solicitors (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

STUDDERT AJ

Thursday 18 September 2008

2007/5112 REGINA v ZETHAN HORAN
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Zethan Horan, stood trial at Bathurst charged with the murder of Michael Healy. The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and he is now before the Court for sentence for that offence.

2 The evidence which emerged at the offender’s trial established that he was party to a criminal enterprise which involved some degree of prior planning. The victim, Michael Healy, lived alone in a residence at Orange. In the course of discussions which preceded the commission of the crime, it was decided that his home would be entered to steal a safe which was believed to be inside the premises. That safe was thought to contain a large sum of money, estimates varying from $20,000 to $60,000. It was believed that the safe also contained some documents of relevance to an alleged fraud.

3 I do not propose to name the participants in the discussion who await trial. I refer to them only by pseudonyms. One of these persons, referred to as “A”, was anxious that the documents relating to the alleged fraud be recovered; the other offender facing trial I will refer to as “B” and his interest in obtaining the money was shared by the offender now for sentence before me. Also interested in the money in the safe was Nathaniel Charman, who has already been sentenced by Hulme J for his part in the criminal enterprise: see R v Charman [2007] NSWSC 1177.

4 The offender Horan made a visit to Michael Healy’s residence in the company of Nathaniel Charman on an occasion prior to the night on which the crime was committed. The earlier visit was in the nature…

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 Horan

Details

AGLC: R v Horan [2008] NSWSC 990
Case: [2008] NSWSC 990
Decision Date: 18 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Horan, the appellant was convicted of manslaughter and the case was brought before the court to determine an appropriate sentence. The appellant, a young individual, had committed the crime under circumstances that warranted consideration of special provisions under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Acts 44. The court was tasked with balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality, particularly given the appellant’s age and the likelihood that this would be his first term of imprisonment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the special circumstances outlined in the relevant legislation warranted a reduced sentence. The court had to consider the appellant's age, his lack of a prior criminal record, and the potential impact of the sentence on his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court also had to assess whether the mandatory minimum sentence should be applied and if any discount was warranted considering the special circumstances.

The court acknowledged the special circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s age and the prospect of this being his first term of imprisonment. It determined that these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court applied a discount to the otherwise mandatory minimum sentence, taking into account the need for rehabilitation and the potential for the appellant to reintegrate into society successfully. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the potential long-term impact of the sentence on the appellant’s life. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that reflected these considerations, ensuring that the punishment was appropriate while also promoting the offender’s rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a discount applied due to the special circumstances. This sentence was intended to balance the need for justice with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality, considering the appellant’s age and the likelihood that this would be his first term of imprisonment.

Orders