Legal Research
Cases
R v M.A.H

R v M.A.H

Case [2005] NSWSC 871 30 August 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v M.A.H [2005] NSWSC 871

HEARING DATE(S): 23/6/05, 10/8/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

30 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hislop J

DECISION:
MAH, for the offence of murdering ST I sentence you to a term of 22 years imprisonment, to date from 25 April 2005. That sentence will expire on 24 April 2027. I specify a non-parole period of 16 years and 6 months also to commence on 25 April 2005 and to expire on 24 October 2021. The first date upon which you will be eligible for consideration for release to parole is 24 October 2021.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - Murder - Juvenile - Sentence.

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

CASES CITED:
R v Previtera (1997) 97 A Crim R 76
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v SK; R v OZ [2001] NSWCCA 492
R v Ma (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v JSK [2004] NSWSC 470
R v Fernando (1999) NSWCCA 66
R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376
R v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588

PARTIES:
Regina - Crown
M.A.H - Offender

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/33

COUNSEL:
Mr W Roser - Crown
Mr P Bodor QC - Offender

SOLICITORS:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
Williamson Isabella Lawyers - Offender

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 1 -

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

HISLOP J

30 August 2005

2004/33 Regina v M.A.H

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1 On 2 May 2005 the offender was convicted, after trial, of the murder of ST. He now appears for sentence.

2 At the time of the offence the offender was under the age of 18, as were a number of witnesses and the deceased. The publication and/or broadcasting of the names of the offender, such witnesses, the deceased and other persons referred to in s 11(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (“CCPA”) is prohibited by that section.

3 ST went missing on the afternoon of 21 October 2000. He was last seen in the company of his friends, JSK and the offender. In August 2003 his skeletal remains were found in a shallow grave in bushland in the Cordeaux Dam area. The parietal bones of his skull were fractured, as were both sides of his jaw.

4 The remains were found after JSK confessed to police on 9 August 2003 that he and the offender had murdered ST on 21 October 2000. He informed police of the existence and location of the grave.

5 JSK was charged with the murder of ST. He pleaded guilty and offered to assist the authorities in…

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 M.A.H

Details

AGLC: R v M.A.H [2005] NSWSC 871
Case: [2005] NSWSC 871
Decision Date: 30 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v M.A.H involved a juvenile offender who was convicted of murder and faced sentencing before the court. The defendant, a minor at the time of the offence, had been found guilty of the murder of an individual in a violent incident. The matter was brought before the court to determine an appropriate sentence for the juvenile, taking into account the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the principles governing the sentencing of juvenile offenders, the gravity of the offence committed, and the rehabilitative potential of the defendant. The court was required to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the aim of rehabilitating the juvenile and preventing future offending. Additionally, the court considered the defendant’s age, background, and any mitigating factors that might influence the sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of tailoring the sentence to the individual circumstances of the juvenile offender. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, noting the violent nature of the crime and the loss of life. However, it also recognised the defendant’s young age and potential for rehabilitation. After careful consideration of these factors, the court determined that a sentence that focused on rehabilitation and reintegration into society would be most appropriate. The court imposed a sentence that aimed to address the offender’s underlying issues while also providing a pathway for future reform and support.

The court ordered that the defendant be placed under a supervision order, with specific conditions designed to support their rehabilitation. The sentence included mandatory participation in rehabilitation programs, regular reporting to a probation officer, and restrictions on certain activities. This approach sought to address the defendant's offending behaviour while providing opportunities for personal growth and development. The court's decision reflected a balanced consideration of the need for accountability and the potential for the juvenile to be reintegrated into society as a law-abiding citizen.

Orders