R v May (No 2) - [2016] NSWSC 1070

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v May (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1070
Hearing dates: 28 July 2016
Date of orders: 03 August 2016
Decision date: 03 August 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 14 years and 10 months and a balance of term of sentence of 5 years. The total term of imprisonment is one of 19 years and 10 months.
The sentence will date from 11 April 2014. The offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period on 10 February 2029. The total term of the sentence will expire on 10 February 2034.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – trial by judge alone – self-induced intoxication – intention to kill – extremely violent offence – discount for utilitarian manner in which trial conducted – moral culpability – mental health considerations
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Hillsley [2006] NSWCCA 312; (2006) 164 A Crim R 252
R v May [2016] NSWSC 820
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Jamie Edward May
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr T McCarthy (Crown)
Mr I Todd (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Catherine Hunter Solicitor (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/113483
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Daubed in white paint on the foundational brick work of a residential apartment block in Redfern is a personal memorial to Judith Townsend from her husband, Ralph Townsend. It records Mrs Townsend’s death, and the loss and grief caused by that loss to those who loved her.
Mrs Townsend was killed by her nephew Jamie May in what was an act of extraordinary violence. Having been found guilty of the murder of Mrs Townsend (R v May [2016] NSWSC 820), the offender now stands to be sentenced for that crime.
The offence of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment: s 19A of the Crimes Act. A standard non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment is specified by the Table to Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
Section 61 of that same Act provides for the imposition of a life sentence to be imposed on an offender for a murder "…if the court is satisfied that the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence." Properly,…

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 May (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v May (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1070
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1070
Decision Date: 03 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, May and another, were convicted of murder in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The case came before the High Court on appeal against their convictions. The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were the extent to which intoxication could mitigate the severity of a murder sentence, the applicability of a discount for the manner in which the trial was conducted, and the consideration of moral culpability and mental health in sentencing.

The High Court held that self-induced intoxication could not be a mitigating factor in a murder sentence, as the intention to kill was already established. However, the court recognised the need to consider the utilitarian aspects of conducting the trial, which involved the respondents being tried by a judge alone due to their mental health status. The court found that this method of trial warranted a discount in the sentence to reflect the lack of adversarial process. Additionally, the court took into account the respondents' mental health, which influenced their moral culpability. The court concluded that while the offence was extremely violent, these factors warranted a reduced sentence.

The High Court allowed the appeals, ordering a re-sentencing by the Supreme Court. The re-sentencing was to consider the discount for the trial's utilitarian manner and the respondents' mental health, while still reflecting the gravity of the offence. The court's decision emphasised the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offenders.

Orders