R v Humphries - [2012] NSWSC 419

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Humphries [2012] NSWSC 419
Hearing dates: 20 April 2012
Decision date: 01 May 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months and a balance of the term of the sentence of 2 years 3 months.
The sentence will date from 15 September 2009. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 14 June 2013. The total term of the sentence will expire on 14 September 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter - secondary participant in killing in the course of drug "rip off" - aggravating feature of participating in disposal of body - favourable subjective case
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Ricky Leigh Humphries
Representation: Counsel:
Mr J McLennan (Crown)
Mr R Button SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2009/206192

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Ricky Leigh Humphries, has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Mr Saaid ("Sid") Zaiter at Chinderah on 16 December 2008. This offence is one that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years.

Facts

According to the statement of facts, the principal offender was Rodney Boyd White. Mr White and Mr Zaiter were known to each other. Both were involved in the illicit drug trade and White purchased drugs from the deceased from time to time.

White lived in a cabin in a caravan park at Chinderah with his girlfriend, Jessica Birkensleigh. In the days preceding 16 December 2008 they made preparations to vacate the cabin and move to Victoria. The Crown alleges that they intended to finance their new life in Victoria by setting up a drug deal with the deceased and then stealing the drugs from him.

It was pursuant to this plan that arrangements were made for Mr Zaiter to meet Mr White at the cabin on 16 December. White and Birkensleigh stayed the night of 15 December at the home of a couple in Casino with whom they were friends, Stephen and Sarah Orams. In the late morning of 16 December Mr White asked Mr Orams to drive him to the cabin at Chinderah. He told Mr Orams that a drug deal was going to take place. On the way he asked that they stop in Lismore and pick up the offender. White said that the offender was going to give him a hand moving some things out of the cabin and was also to provide backup "in case this other fellow brings any mates with him".

White had contacted the offender earlier on the morning of 16 December to enlist his help. The two had known each other for a few years. White was a friend of the offender's stepfather. There is no suggestion that the offender was aware of White's plan to steal Mr Zaiter's drugs, but he did understand that his role was…

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 Humphries

Details

AGLC: R v Humphries [2012] NSWSC 419
Case: [2012] NSWSC 419
Decision Date: 01 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Humphries involved the respondent, Humphries, who was found to be a secondary participant in a killing that occurred during a drug-related robbery. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Humphries' role in the crime, which included his involvement in disposing of the victim's body. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for a secondary participant in a manslaughter case, considering the aggravating factor of participating in the disposal of the victim's body, and the subjective circumstances that could potentially mitigate the sentence.

The court examined the degree of Humphries' involvement in the crime and the specific actions he took, which included participating in the disposal of the victim's body. The court noted that while Humphries' role was not that of the primary perpetrator, his actions significantly contributed to the concealment of the crime. In determining the sentence, the court considered the subjective circumstances of the case, including Humphries' cooperation with law enforcement and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court found that the aggravating factor of participating in the disposal of the body warranted a harsher sentence, but the favourable subjective circumstances provided some mitigation. The court balanced these factors and determined an appropriate sentence for Humphries, taking into account the severity of the crime and the individual's role in it.

The High Court concluded that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime, while also considering the mitigating factors presented in Humphries' case. The court ordered that Humphries be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific regard to the aggravating and mitigating factors discussed. The final orders included a detailed sentencing determination, which balanced the gravity of the crime with the individual circumstances of the offender. The court's decision provided guidance on the appropriate approach to sentencing in similar cases involving secondary participants in violent crimes.

Orders