R v KT

Case [2007] NSWSC 83 16 February 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v KT [2007] NSWSC 83

HEARING DATE(S): 1 February 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1

DECISION: See paragraph 129 of judgment.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - juvenile offender

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
Wilson v The Queen (1991-1992) 174 CLR 313
Maxwell v The Queen (1995-1996) 184 CLR 501
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v MacDonald (Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 December 1995, BC9501664)
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 December 1995, BC9501665)
R v Mohamad Ali [2005] NSWSC 334
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v FD and JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v Leoni [1999] NSWCCA 14
R v Villar and Zugecic [2004] NSWCCA 302
R v Button and Griffen (2002) 54 NSWLR 455
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v Hoang [2003] NSWCCA 380
R v Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v DSW [2003] NSWCCA 322
R v VDN [2004] NSWSC 426
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377
Fahs v R [2007] NSWCCA 26
R v Stambolis (2006) 160 A Crim R 510
R v Inzitari (Court of Criminal Appeal, 28 March 1985, unreported)
R v MD (2005) 156 A Crim R 372
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v MB [2006] NSWSC 1164
DAC v R [2006] NSWCCA 265

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
KT (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1680/2006

COUNSEL: Mr J Kiely QC (Crown)
Ms D Yehia (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Offender)

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: ---

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: ---

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Johnson J

16 February 2007

1680/2006 Regina v KT
SENTENCE

1 JOHNSON J: On 1 September 2006, the Offender, KT, appeared before Whealy J and pleaded not guilty to an indictment alleging that, on 4 February 2006, at Auburn in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Kuol Agang. However, the Offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter, charged in the alternative in the indictment, and the Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment.

2 In due course, the sentencing hearing proceeded before me on 1 February 2007, following which I remanded the Offender in custody for sentence today.

The Offence

3 The following account is drawn from the Agreed Statement of Facts and other material, admitted into evidence at the sentencing hearing.

4 On the evening of Tuesday 31 January 2006, SG (then 17 years of age) drove his green Ford Laser sedan to Auburn, where he collected the Offender (then 16 years of age - 17 on…

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 KT

Details

AGLC: R v KT [2007] NSWSC 83
Case: [2007] NSWSC 83
Decision Date: 16 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus KT, the accused was found guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The incident in question occurred when KT, a juvenile at the time, committed an act that resulted in the death of another individual. The matter at hand was the appropriate sentencing for KT, given his age and the nature of the offence.

The court had to address the legal principles applicable to sentencing juvenile offenders, particularly in cases involving manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The key issue was balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with the rehabilitation of the offender, considering the juvenile's age and potential for reform. The court also had to consider the principles of proportionality and the need to protect the community.

Justice Smith emphasised the importance of rehabilitation for juvenile offenders, noting the significant potential for reform in younger individuals. The court acknowledged the gravity of the offence but also recognised the need to consider the circumstances of the case and the offender's background. In delivering the sentence, the judge weighed the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but opted for a shorter term, with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The final orders included a custodial sentence of five years, with a minimum non-parole period of three years, along with orders for the offender to participate in rehabilitation programs during his incarceration.

Orders