R v Jones (No 3)

Case [2014] NSWSC 1511

Supreme Court

New South Wales
Case Title: R v Jones (No 3)
Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWSC 1511
Hearing Date(s): 17 October 2014
Decision Date: 31 October 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:

Convicted. Sentenced for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to date from 15 December 2012 and to expire on 14 June 2014. Because of the sentence structure, there will be no non-parole period.

Convicted. Sentenced for the offence of murder to a non-parole period of 20 years to date from 15 September 2013 and to expire on 14 September 2033. There will be a parole period of 7 years that expires on 14 September 2040. The first date upon which you will be eligible for release to parole is 14 September 2033.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - remarks on sentence - offender found guilty of murder by jury - death by ligature strangulation - offender intended to kill deceased - offender had previous criminal conviction for violence - established problem with prohibited drugs
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 28(4)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Cases Cited: R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Wayne Edward Jones
Representation
- Counsel: Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr C Watson (Offender)
- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Sydney Criminal Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s): 2012/389477

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. On 12 May 2014 at Coffs Harbour, Wayne Edward Jones (the offender) was arraigned before a jury panel and me. The indictment contained a single count alleging that, between 11 December 2012 and 17 December 2012 at Coffs Harbour, he murdered Michelle Jane Reynolds (the deceased). In my summing-up, I left to the consideration of the jury the lesser form of homicide, manslaughter. After a short retirement, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder.

  2. On 17 October 2014 at Sydney, the offender was arraigned before me on an indictment containing a further count. It alleged that, on 15 December 2012 at Coffs Harbour, the offender had supplied a prohibited drug, namely methylamphetamine, in the amount of 81.9 grams. The offender pleaded guilty to that count. In fact, he had pleaded guilty in the Local Court many months before, and the arraignment was required merely because of a technical defect in the document committing him for sentence.

  3. The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life without parole. The learned Crown Prosecutor did not submit that that ultimate sentence would be appropriate. In the circumstances of this case, Parliament has prescribed a standard non-parole period of 20 years. I have regarded both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period for murder as important guideposts in my exercise of sentencing discretion.

  4. The maximum penalty…

Continue reading R v Jones (No 3)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jones (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1511
Case
[2014] NSWSC 1511
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jones, the offender was convicted of the murder of Michelle Jane Reynolds, and the supply of a prohibited drug. The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the case and delivered its judgment on the sentence to be imposed on the offender. The central issues for the court were the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder and the sentencing for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug.

The court considered the brutal and motiveless nature of the murder, the offender's prior history of violence, and the fact that he had been on conditional liberty at the time of the offence. The offender's gross intoxication by prohibited drugs was acknowledged, but not taken into account in mitigation. The court emphasised the need for a sentence of due severity to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to deter the offender and others from committing similar offences. The court also considered the need for rehabilitation and the potential for the offender to reoffend.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment for the offence of supplying a prohibited drug, to run concurrently with the sentence for murder. For the offence of murder, the court imposed a non-parole period of 20 years and 9 months, to be followed by a parole period of 7 years. The offender will be eligible for release to parole on 14 September 2033. The court also noted that the offender has shown no remorse for his actions.

The final orders of the court are that the offender is subject to an overall head sentence of imprisonment for 27 years 9 months, with an overall non-parole period of 20 years 9 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The facts underpinning the two counts are very much bound up with each other, and it is convenient to discuss them together.Undisputed facts The deceased was born in August 1978, and accordingly at the date of her death was aged 34 years. Her family connections were on the Central Coast of New South Wales. Between about 1998 and 2008, she gave birth to four sons. In 2008 or 2009 she separated from the father of her children. In early 2011, the deceased began a relationship with Mr Adam Smedley. Although the deceased told Mr Smedley that she was "against drugs", he observed aspects of her behaviour during their relationship that suggest that she may well have been involved with prohibited drugs. Separately, in the latter half of 2012, the offender, who was himself living on the Central Coast, met a Mr Matthew Hoare. Mr Hoare was the mentor of the offender in his efforts to free himself from a dependence on prohibited drugs. On Sunday 18 November 2012, Mr Smedley suggested that he and the deceased have a break from their relationship because of ongoing arguments between the two of them. The deceased went to live with her mother, Ms Jeanette Reynolds, at her home in Woy Woy. The deceased was "down" as a result of the difficulties in her relationship with Mr Smedley. She was not working, but would attend karaoke evenings with her family. A number of people who were close to her saw aspects of her appearance and behaviour that suggested that she was using prohibited drugs. On one of the karaoke evenings, the family circle of the deceased was introduced to the offender. On what was in all likelihood 22 November 2012, the offender arrived at the home of Ms Reynolds. The deceased was present. The offender was in possession of cannabis, various pills, and amphetamines. He also possessed a small set of digital scales. In the presence of Ms Cavers, the offender supplied the deceased with $150 worth of amphetamines. Later that day, the offender travelled to a hospital car park, and obtained some syringes from an automatic vending machine there. Clearly enough, the offender was both an intravenous user and supplier of prohibited drugs. On Friday 23 November 2012, the deceased saw her estranged husband in order to have an access visit with one of her sons. He formed the opinion that she was affected by a prohibited drug. The deceased introduced the offender, who was with her, as "Ozzie". When they returned to her mother's home, she also formed the view that her daughter was affected by some sort of drug. On Sunday 25 November 2012, the deceased saw Mr Smedley at a party. She wished to come home with him, but he wanted more time to reflect on the relationship. The deceased began to cry. The following day, the deceased left her mother's home with only a bag, her son's phone, and her own mobile phone. She told her mother that she was going to Woy Woy and would not be long. Her mother never saw her daughter again. Over the next several days, SMSs passed between Ms Reynolds and the deceased. Their general flavour was that Ms Reynolds feared that her daughter was abusing amphetamines, and urged her to come home. The deceased told her mother to mind her own business.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

On behalf of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, I extend my condolences to all of those who have loved and lost Michelle Jane Reynolds. The conclusion of the proceedings today may provide some relief to those who are suffering. But I accept that the after-effects of the murder of this young woman will be felt for many decades.Conclusion In short, the offender bashed and thereafter strangled to death a defenceless woman. His intention at the latter time was to kill. Before death the deceased was injured with a chemical. After death her body was treated with contempt. Although this unplanned and motiveless course of action was caused by the gross intoxication of the offender by prohibited drugs, I do not take that fact into account in mitigation. At the time, the offender was in possession of prohibited drugs, some of which were to be supplied for profit. The offender has expressed no remorse whatsoever for what he has done. When he committed these offences the offender was subject to conditional liberty imposed by a criminal court. Regrettably, the previous act of brutal violence inflicted upon a defenceless woman that led to him being imprisoned for many years was unable to deflect the offender from progressing to the worst crime known to law. The criminal justice system must respond with a sentence of due severity.Imposition of sentence Wayne Edward Jones, you are convicted of the offence of supplying a prohibited drug. For that offence, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to date from 15 December 2012 and to expire on 14 June 2014. Because of the sentence structure, there will be no non-parole period. Wayne Edward Jones, you are convicted of the offence of murder. For that offence, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 20 years to date from 15 September 2013 and to expire on 14 September 2033. There will be a parole period of 7 years that expires on 14 September 2040. The first date upon which you will be eligible for release to parole is 14 September 2033. To express my orders another way, the offender is subject to an overall head sentence of imprisonment for 27 years 9 months, with an overall non-parole period of 20 years 9 months. **********

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.