Legal Research
Cases
R v Martin

R v Martin

Case [2015] NSWSC 521 7 May 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Nature and Seriousness of the Offence

Aggravating Factors

Mitigating Factors

Personal Circumstances

Victim Impact Statements

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Martin [2015] NSWSC 521
Hearing dates: 6 March 2015
Date of orders: 07 May 2015
Decision date: 07 May 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Convicted of murder.
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 27 years, commencing on 6 September 2012 and expiring on 5 September 2039, with a non-parole period of 20 years, 3 months, expiring on 5 December 2032.
The balance of term of 6 years, 9 months, is to expire on 5 September 2039.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – nature and seriousness of the offence – moral culpability – aggravating factors – mitigating factors – personal circumstances – victim impact statements – sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Black v The Queen [1993] HCA 71; (1993) 179 CLR 44
Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Cheung v The Queen [2001] HCA 67; (2001) 209 CLR 1
Dulihanty v R [2013] NSWCCA 275
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Tyrone Earl Martin
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Fox (Crown)
Mr E Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/279069
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

On 6 September 2012, Tyrone Martin killed Jeffery Hindle, at his home on a remote property located near Braidwood. He never denied killing Mr Hindle, but always claimed that he had acted in self defence when he hit him in the head with a concrete block. He later offered to plead guilty to manslaughter, an offer which he made again at his trial, but those offers were not accepted by the Crown. At trial, the jury concluded that he had not acted in self defence, nor had he been provoked by Jeffery Hindle.
On 24 October 2014, Mr Martin was found guilty of murder. He now stands for sentence for that offence.

This Court’s task on sentencing

I will begin by explaining how that sentence must be arrived at, by reference to what legislation enacted by the Parliament and binding case law requires, in a sentencing exercise such as this.
The rules of evidence do not ordinarily apply at a sentencing hearing (see s 4 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)), but nevertheless, the weight of the evidence which the parties then lead, must be critically assessed.
After a…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2015] NSWSC 521
Case: [2015] NSWSC 521
Decision Date: 07 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Australia. The accused, Martin, was convicted of the murder of his partner. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed by the lower court, which Martin argued was excessive. The nature of the dispute was the appropriateness of the sentence given to Martin for his crime.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Martin was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the offence, the moral culpability of the offender, and other relevant factors. The court was required to balance the aggravating factors of the crime, such as the premeditation and brutality, against the mitigating factors, which included Martin's personal circumstances and the impact of the crime on the victim's family.

The court considered the evidence presented and determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the trial judge had properly assessed the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court emphasised the heinous nature of the crime and the significant moral culpability of Martin. However, it also took into account the personal circumstances of Martin and the impact on the victim's family. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding no error in the sentencing process. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders