R v JB

Case [1999] NSWCCA 93 27 April 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v JB, Regina v RJH [1999] NSWCCA 93

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60683/97 (JB); 60684/97 (RJH)

HEARING DATE(S): 9 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 April 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v JB, Regina v RJH

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Studdert J at 40; Smart AJ at 42

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : CL 70081/97 (JB and RJH)

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hunt CJ at CL

COUNSEL: P. Byrne SC (Appellant) - JB
W. Dawe QC (Respondent)
J. Nicholson SC (Appellant) - RJH
W. Dawe QC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission - JB
Aboriginal Legal Service - RJH

CATCHWORDS: FELONY MURDER - De Simoni principle - robbery whilst in company - infliction of grievous bodily harm - circumstance of aggravation - victim murdered with rock by two co-offenders - appeal against sentence - whether sentence was manifestly excessive - proportionality of sentences imposed - objective gravity of crime - guilty plea - assistance to authorities - special circumstances of co-offenders - Aboriginality - youth - intellectual disability - deprived socio-economic background - weight to be given to special circumstances - prospects of rehabilitation

ACTS CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987; s 19; Sentencing Act 1989; s 5; Crimes Act 1900; s 98

CASES CITED:
Regina v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
Regina v Ryan (1996) 90 A Crim R 191
De Simoni v The Queen (1980 - 1981) 147 CLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60683/97
60684/97

STEIN JA
STUDDERT J
SMART AJ

Tuesday, 27 April 1999

REGINA v JB
REGINA v RJH

On 28 May 1997 the victim, Mr White, was walking home from work near the Metford railway station. It was between 6 pm and 6.30 pm when he was walking through parkland and playing fields near the vicinity of a bridge over a small creek. There the two co-offenders robbed the victim of his wallet and he was attacked in a ferocious manner. Mr White received at least ten blows to the head with a rock weighing close to 2 kg. He sustained severe head injuries, including multiple fractures to his skull. The horrific injuries inflicted caused his death. His body was discovered the next morning by his wife and daughter.
Both JB and JBH pleaded guilty to felony murder. In proceedings before Hunt J, JB was sentenced to penal servitude for 16 years, consisting of a minimum term of 11 years and an additional term of 5 years. RJH was sentenced to penal servitude for 18 years, consisting of a minimum term of 12 years and an additional term of 6 years.
On JB’s appeal, it was argued that:
(1) his Honour erred in failing to give recognition to the applicant’s deprived socio-economic background and his Aboriginality;
(2) his Honour erred in finding that the applicant had no prospect of rehabilitation;
(3) his Honour erred in sentencing on the basis of a need for general deterrence, in circumstances in…

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 JB

Details

AGLC: R v JB [1999] NSWCCA 93
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 93
Decision Date: 27 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by JB against a sentence imposed for his involvement in the death of the victim during the course of a robbery. The victim was fatally injured by two co-offenders using a rock. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the legal issues included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the proportionality of the sentences imposed, the objective gravity of the crime, the defendant's guilty plea, assistance to authorities, and the special circumstances of the co-offenders. JB's background, including his Aboriginality, youth, intellectual disability, and deprived socio-economic circumstances, were also considered.

The court considered the principle of De Simoni, which applies when a person commits a felony and someone else causes death during the commission of that felony. The court had to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether it was proportionate to the objective gravity of the crime. The defendant's guilty plea and assistance to authorities were mitigating factors, while the objective gravity of the crime was a significant aggravating factor. The special circumstances of the co-offenders, including the fact that they were the ones who directly caused the death, were also weighed. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors of JB's background but found that they did not significantly outweigh the aggravating factors.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was proportionate to the objective gravity of the crime. The mitigating factors, including the defendant's guilty plea and assistance to authorities, were considered but did not significantly outweigh the aggravating factors, particularly the objective gravity of the crime. The court found that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's role in it. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court made no orders regarding the costs of the appeal. The defendant remained sentenced for the crime as determined by the trial court.

Orders