R v Jack Beaudean Colley (No 4) - [2010] NSWSC 1475

CITATION: R v Jack Beaudean COLLEY (No 4) [2010] NSWSC 1475

HEARING DATE(S): 6 September 2010-8 September 2010, 13 September 2010-17 September 2010, 26 November 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 December 2010

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION:
Sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 months imprisonment commencing 14 June 2010 and expiring 13 October 2011, with a balance of term of further imprisonment of 3 years and 2 months, expiring 13 December 2014. The total sentence is imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months. First eligible for release on 13 October 2011.
I direct that the prisoner be assessed forthwith, and, for the reasons herein associated with risk and the need for family support, recommend that Jack Colley be classified as a minimum security prisoner (classification C2 or lower) and be accommodated at Glen Innes.
I direct that a copy of Dr Nielssen's Report (Ex S1) be attached to these orders and provided to the Department of Corrective Services.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – manslaughter – joint criminal enterprise – parity – relative culpability – youth just over 18 years of age

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Jimmy v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 60; (2010) 269 ALR 115
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
MJ v R, CPD v R [2010] NSWCCA 52
Postiglione v R [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Jack Beaudean Colley (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/258242

COUNSEL: J McLennan (Crown)
C Davenport SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Moin & Associates Lawyers (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ROTHMAN J

17 DECEMBER 2010

2009/258242 R v Jack Beaudean COLLEY (No 4)
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Mr Jack Colley has been tried by jury and found guilty of manslaughter. He and his brother Brendan Colley were party to an agreement which resulted in the death of Stephen Cameron, who was beaten in his own home on the night of Saturday 4 October 2008. For reasons which are currently irrelevant, Mr Cameron’s partner did not realise the nature of the injuries sustained by him and his death was not discovered until the next morning. It is the Court’s function to sentence Jack Colley.

2 Manslaughter is an extremely serious offence. It carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period, because the range of circumstances that may give rise to manslaughter is so wide. The starting point for a consideration of the appropriate penalty, in this case, is the assessment of the gravity of the objective circumstances of the case and an understanding that the offence involved the taking of human life. Whatever view one may take of the conduct of the victim,…

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 Jack Beaudean Colley (No 4) 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: [2010] NSWSC 1475
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jack Beaudean Colley, the respondent, Jack Beaudean Colley, was convicted of manslaughter following his involvement in a joint criminal enterprise. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Colley, who was just over 18 years old at the time of the offence. The primary legal issues before the court were the principles of parity and relative culpability, considering Colley's age and his level of involvement in the criminal enterprise. The court also had to balance these considerations with the need to ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the principles of justice.

The court acknowledged that, while Colley was just over 18 years old, he was still an adult for sentencing purposes. However, the court also recognised that his age might be a mitigating factor. The court considered the principle of parity, which requires that similarly situated offenders receive similar sentences, and the principle of relative culpability, which requires that sentences reflect the degree of an offender's responsibility for the crime. The court found that Colley's relative culpability was less than that of his co-offenders due to his limited role in the planning and execution of the crime. The court also noted that Colley had shown remorse and had a potential for rehabilitation.

After weighing these factors, the court determined that an appropriate sentence would be one that reflected the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence that was less severe than that of Colley's co-offenders, taking into account his age, his limited role in the crime, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court also noted that the sentence should not be so lenient as to undermine the seriousness of the offence or the need for deterrence. The court's decision balanced the principles of parity and relative culpability with the need to ensure that the sentence was just and appropriate for the crime committed.

Orders