R v King; R v York - [2024] NSWSC 620

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v King; R v York [2024] NSWSC 620
Hearing dates: 26 April 2024
Date of orders: 23 May 2024
Decision date: 23 May 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
Tyler King
For the offence of manslaughter Tyler King is convicted and sentenced to:
(1) Imprisonment for a term of 6 years and 9 months to commence on 21 April 2023 and to expire on 20 January 2030.
(2) The non-parole period is 4 years and 3 months commencing on 21 April 2023 and expiring on 20 July 2027.
(3) Pursuant to s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), Tyler King is advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offences of which he has been convicted. His legal representatives are directed to advise him of the implications of those matters to him.
Maddison York
(1) For the offence of accessory after the fact to manslaughter Maddison York is convicted and released with no other penalty imposed pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW).

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – MANSLAUGHTER – self-defence – excessive self-defence – plea of guilty – special circumstances
SENTENCE – MANSLAUGHTER – excessive self-defence – accessory after the fact – pre-sentence custody – conviction without further penalty

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(b), 350, 421(1)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5(1), 9, 10A, 24, 71, 86

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Fuller v R [2022] NSWCCA 203
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Newburn v R [2022] NSWCCA 139
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
Quinn v R [2023] NSWCCA 229
R v Charters [2020] NSWSC 842
R v Hannah Quinn (No 1) [2021] NSWSC 493
R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; [2005] HCA 37
R v Muddle [2004] NSWSC 403
R v Nancarrow [2022] NSWSC 455
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, 12 December 1995, unrep)
Smith v R [2015] NSWCCA 193
R v Stanley (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 74
TT v R [2014] NSWCCA 206

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Tyler Edwin King (Offender)
Maddison York (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Queenan (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Offender King)
D Stewart (Offender York)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Offender King)
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Offender York)

File Number(s): 2022/269463
2022/269471
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 21 November 2022, Tyler King pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of Jesse Tattersall on the basis of excessive self-defence. On 22 November 2022, Maddison York pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to that manslaughter.
At the time of the unlawful killing, Mr King (then aged 25) and…

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 King; R v York 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: [2024] NSWSC 620
Decision Date: 23 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, King and York, faced the court in relation to their involvement in the manslaughter of an individual. King had initially pleaded guilty to manslaughter, whereas York admitted to being an accessory after the fact. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue revolved around the applicability of the plea of excessive self-defence and the sentencing considerations for both parties, particularly in light of King's early guilty plea and York's role as an accessory.

The court considered whether King's plea of excessive self-defence should be accepted as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court also had to evaluate the impact of York's admission to being an accessory after the fact and determine the appropriate sentence for his role in the events. Furthermore, the court examined the pre-sentence custody periods already served by both appellants and whether these periods should influence the final sentencing outcome. The overarching legal considerations included the principles of justice and proportionality in sentencing, as well as the special circumstances of each appellant's involvement.

In its decision, the court acknowledged that King's early guilty plea and the mitigating factor of excessive self-defence warranted a reduced sentence. The court recognised York's role as an accessory after the fact but considered the significant pre-sentence custody he had already served. Ultimately, the court determined that both appellants should receive sentences that reflected the special circumstances of their involvement in the manslaughter, with particular emphasis on the mitigating factors presented by King. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need for a just and proportionate outcome that balanced the principles of justice with the specific circumstances of each case.

Orders