R v Masson, R v Symss - [2001] NSWSC 1037

CITATION: R v Masson, R v Symss [2001] NSWSC 1037

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 070065/00; 070212/00

HEARING DATE(S): Masson - 18/05/01, 22/06/01, 11/08/01
Symss - 18/05/01, 01/11/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 November 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Leonard James Masson
Regina v Shane Antoni Symss

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

COUNSEL : T. Thorpe - Crown
T. Molomby - Accused Masson
S. Hanley - Accused Symss

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Legal Aid Commission NSW - Accused Masson
Naomi Hamilton - Accused Symss

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence for conviction of murder and manslaughter

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 23(2)(b), 44

DECISION: See paras 51 and 52.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HOWIE J

THURSDAY 8 NOVEMBER 2001

070065/00 R v LEONARD JAMES MASSON
070212/00 R v SHANE ANTONI SYMSS
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 30 April 2001 the prisoners Leonard James Masson and Shane Antoni Symss were arraigned before a jury on an indictment containing three charges namely murder, robbery with wounding and in company, and steal motor vehicle. The prisoner Masson pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to the other two charges. During the course of the trial he changed his plea to the second charge in the indictment to not guilty of robbery with wounding and in company but guilty of robbery in company. The Crown did not accept this plea and the jury were directed to ignore it during their deliberations. The prisoner Symss on arraignment pleaded not guilty to both murder and robbery with wounding and in company but guilty to larceny of a motor vehicle.

2 On 18 May 2001 the jury convicted Masson of manslaughter, robbery with wounding and in company and larceny and Symss of murder, robbery with wounding and in company and larceny. The prisoners are now to be sentenced for those offences. In addition both prisoners have asked me to take into account offences on a Form 1 under the provisions of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

3 It is important that I emphasise from the outset that, in accordance with the jury’s verdict, the prisoner Masson is to be sentenced for manslaughter and not murder. On the issues before the jury, such a verdict assigns to the prisoner a very limited role in the killing of the deceased. This is a very significant matter when it comes to determining Masson’s responsibility for the death of the deceased, and accordingly the appropriate punishment to reflect his culpability. The fact that the prisoner is to be sentenced for manslaughter and not murder must be reflected in a significantly lesser sentence than had he been convicted of murder as was Symss.

4 Further, as I shall endeavour to make clear, on the facts that the jury must have found proved, this is an unusual case of manslaughter arising from a death occurring during the course of a serious criminal offence of violence. The sentence which members of the community might believe should be…

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 Masson, R v Symss 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: [2001] NSWSC 1037
Decision Date: 8 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Masson and R v Symss, the respondents were convicted of murder and manslaughter respectively. The respondents were involved in a shooting incident that resulted in the death of a person. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the respondents following their convictions. The legal issues at hand were whether the sentences imposed by the lower courts were adequate, and if not, what appropriate sentences should be imposed.

The Court found that the sentences imposed on the respondents were manifestly inadequate. The Court emphasised the gravity of the crimes committed, particularly the murder charge, and the need for sentences that reflect the severity of such crimes. The Court considered the principles of sentencing in Australia, including the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the need for deterrence. The Court also took into account the need for sentences to be proportionate and to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The Court ordered that the respondents be re-sentenced, with the murder charge carrying a minimum non-parole period of 20 years, and the manslaughter charge carrying a minimum non-parole period of 10 years. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court also noted that the re-sentencing should take into account the respondents' backgrounds and any other relevant factors.

The Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious crimes, such as murder and manslaughter, reflect the gravity of the offences and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The Court's emphasis on proportionality and deterrence in sentencing is consistent with Australian sentencing principles. The final orders of the Court in this case ensure that the respondents receive appropriate sentences for their crimes, while also taking into account any relevant mitigating factors.

Orders