R v Lamb and Thurston - [2002] NSWSC 1025

CITATION: R v Lamb & Thurston [2002] NSWSC 1025

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70209/01; 70066/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15 April - 10 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 November 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Stanley Joseph Lamb (Prisoner)
Edward George Thurston (Prisoner)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : MA Macadam QC - Crown
PM Paish - Lamb
AI Parker - Thurston

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Ross Hill & Associates - Lamb
Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Thurston

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 44(2)

CASES CITED: R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58,
R v Ceissman [2001] NSWCCA 73, 119 A Crim R 535,
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28.

DECISION: See paras 46 & 47.

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

DUNFORD J

Friday, 1 NOVEMBER 2002

70209/01 R v Stanley Joseph LAMB
70066/01 R v Edward George THURSTON
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Stanley Joseph Lamb and Edward George Thurston have been found guilty of the murder of Terrence Patrick Byrne who was savagely kicked and stomped to death in a park in Tamworth on 29 October 2000 between about 7.45 and 8.45 in the evening.

2 The prisoners are stepbrothers who grew up together on the mission station at Collarenebri. Stanley Lamb had been living in Tamworth for some months and Edward Thurston, having left his de-facto wife in Dalby following domestic disagreements, was on his way to Sydney when he stopped over in Tamworth on the weekend of 28 and 29 of October and went to visit Lamb’s older brother, Frank Murray, at his home at 12 Kenny Drive in Coledale, a suburb in Tamworth.

3 On Sunday 29 October both Stanley Lamb and Edward Thurston spent most of the day drinking Moselle cask wine with a number of other Aboriginal young people in the Coledale area. Evidence was given by a number of witnesses concerning this drinking and it is apparent that Stanley Lamb in particular was significantly affected by the amount of alcohol he had drunk. During the afternoon they also, in the company of others, each smoked a couple of cones of marijuana in a bong.

4 Stanley Lamb had a verbal argument with Bradley French during the afternoon, and later he had a more intense argument with Anthony Slater because of which he removed his shirt and wanted to fight Anthony Slater. On both of these occasions Edward Thurston acted as a restraining influence and told him to calm down, and in the case of Anthony Slater he actually physically restrained him.

5 After the argument with Anthony Slater it appears that the prisoners walked towards Granny Munroe Park and shortly afterwards they were seen on the grassed area of the car park of the Coledale Community Centre where Stanley Lamb again became abusive towards Michael Marshall who was passing by, calling him “a white motherfucking cunt”. The…

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 Lamb and Thurston

Details

AGLC: R v Lamb and Thurston [2002] NSWSC 1025
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1025
Decision Date: 1 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Lamb and Thurston, the respondents were convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The case involved the brutal killing of a man during an altercation in a public place. The respondents were found guilty of murder and were subsequently brought before the court for sentencing. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondents, given the gravity of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the incident. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors presented by the respondents' legal teams, as well as the aggravating factors that pointed to the heinous nature of the crime.

The court acknowledged the significant harm caused by the respondents' actions, which resulted in the death of an innocent person. The judge took into account the premeditation and brutality of the crime, as well as the lack of remorse shown by the respondents. However, the court also considered the mitigating factors presented, such as the respondents' age at the time of the offence and their background. After carefully weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the respondents was life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The judge emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need to protect society from the respondents, while also taking into account the need for rehabilitation and the potential for the respondents to change their ways.

The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principles of justice and proportionality, and the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court's decision was also consistent with the sentencing principles set out in relevant legislation and case law. The court's final orders were that the respondents be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The respondents were also ordered to pay restitution to the victim's family, in the amount of $50,000 each.

Orders