Legal Research
Cases
R v Jones

R v Jones

Case [2007] NSWSC 1333 23 November 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Jones & Others [2007] NSWSC 1333

HEARING DATE(S): 20/07/2007, 31/08/2007, 14/09/2007, 19/10/2007, 16/11/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 November 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: Adam Samuel Jones: For the offence of malicious wounding of Noah Henry Smith, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months imprisonment to commence on 9 October 2005. I decline to impose a non-parole period because of the sentence which I am about to impose. For the offence of manslaughter of William Smith and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 document, the offender is sentenced to a total term of 8 years 3 months consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years 3 months with the balance of the term being 3 years. Each term will commence on 9 July 2006. The total term will expire on 8 October 2014 and the non-parole period will expire on 8 October 2011 on which date the offender will be eligible for release on parole. The total effective sentence is thus one of 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years. Adam Jones: For the offence of malicious wounding of Noah Henry Smith, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months imprisonment to commence on 26 October 2005. I decline to impose a non-parole period because of the sentence for manslaughter which I am about to impose. For the offence of common assault upon Mary Rose Smith, the offender is sentenced to 4 months imprisonment to commence on 26 July 2006. I decline to impose a non-parole period because of the sentence which I am about to impose. For the offence of manslaughter of William Smith, the offender is sentenced to a total term of 8 years 3 months consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years 3 months with the balance of the term being 3 years. Each term will commence on 26 July 2006. The total term will expire on 25 October 2014 and the non-parole period will expire on 25 October 2011 on which date the offender will be eligible for release on parole. The total effective sentence is thus one of 9 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years. Samuel Mark Jones: For the offence of malicious wounding of Noah Henry Smith, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months imprisonment to commence on 27 June 2007. I decline to impose a non-parole period because of the sentence which I am about to impose. For the offence of manslaughter of William Smith, the offender is sentenced to a total term of 8 years 3 months consisting of a non-parole period of 5 years 3 months with the balance of the term being 3 years. Each term will commence on 27 March 2008. The total term will expire on 26 June 2016 and the non-parole period will expire on 26 June 2013 on which date the offender will be eligible for release on parole. The total effective…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2007] NSWSC 1333
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1333
Decision Date: 23 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved multiple defendants charged with various offences, including manslaughter, being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter and malicious wounding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants were part of a joint criminal enterprise, and the central issue was the appropriate basis for sentencing them. The court had to consider the principles of totality, partial accumulation, special circumstances, and parity in determining the sentences. Additionally, the Crown offered a discount for pleas of guilty, which was not accepted.

The legal issues before the court involved the determination of the appropriate sentencing principles for multiple offenders in a joint criminal enterprise. The court had to consider the principles of totality and partial accumulation, which involve the consideration of the total criminality of the offenders and the degree of involvement of each offender in the offending. Special circumstances and parity were also considered, with the court determining whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles and whether the sentences should reflect the proportionate culpability of the offenders. The court also had to consider the Crown's offer of a discount for pleas of guilty, which was not accepted.

The court found that the principles of totality and partial accumulation were applicable in this case, with the total criminality of the offenders being considered in determining the sentences. The court also found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles, and that the sentences should reflect the proportionate culpability of the offenders. The court rejected the Crown's offer of a discount for pleas of guilty, as it was not accepted. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate basis for sentencing the defendants was the degree of involvement of each offender in the offending, and the sentences were imposed accordingly.

The court ordered that the defendants be sentenced according to the degree of their involvement in the offending, with consideration given to the principles of totality, partial accumulation, special circumstances, and parity. The sentences were to reflect the proportionate culpability of each offender, and the Crown's offer of a discount for pleas of guilty was rejected. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentences were just and proportionate to the offending, and that they reflected the individual culpability of each offender.

Orders