R v MD, NA, BM,JT - [2005] NSWSC 344

CITATION:
R v MD, NA, BM,JT [2005] NSWSC 344
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 13 October 2004
14 October 2004
2 November 2004
18 March 2005
1 April 2005
8 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

12 April 2005

JURISDICTION:
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF:
Greg James J at 1

DECISION:
See judgment

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentencing - Manslaughter - Juvenile Offenders - Unlawful and dangerous act

LEGISLATION CITED:
Childrens (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900

PARTIES:
Regina v MD
Regina v NA
Regina v BM
Regina v JT

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 70094/2003; 70243/2003; 70224/2003; 70245/2003

COUNSEL:
T Hoyle SC Crown Prosecutor
P Zahra SC for MD
P Bodor QC for NA
M Ramage QC for BM
P Roberts for JT

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - S Kavanagh
Legal Aid Commission

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

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

GREG JAMES J

14 April 2005
70094 of 2003

REGINA V JT
REGINA V NA
REGINA V BM
REGINA V MD
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 GREG JAMES J: Each of the offenders are persons to whom section 11 of the Childrens (Criminal Proceedings) Act applies so I refer to them by initials. Each of the offenders has pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter committed on 31 December 2002 at Emu Plains.

2 The offender, BM has also pleaded guilty to one count of common assault, that being an assault on the companion of the person who died whose death resulted in the charges of manslaughter to which I have referred. The offender, JT has similarly pleaded guilty to one count of common assault on that companion. The offender, MD has pleaded guilty also to one count that he stole a mobile telephone from the person of the young man who died. It now falls to me to pass sentence on all of these young offenders for those crimes.

3 It should be clear, notwithstanding some assertions that were made in the evidence in the trial which aborted, late last year that being a trial of each of the accused for murder, that none of the offenders are convicted of the crime of robbery and it is not for me to deal with them on a factual basis that amounts to the commission of that crime. None of the offenders are convicted of murder and none of the offenders are convicted of occasioning any bodily harm to the deceased’s companion and it is not for me to deal with them as though they had pleaded guilty to those crimes either.

4 Before me there is a victim’s impact statement provided by that companion and a psychiatric report provided in respect of the harm occasioned to that companion. Whilst I have taken the contents of those documents into account and particularly into account in respect of the sentencing on the common assault count and, whilst I have had regard…

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 MD, NA, BM,JT

Details

AGLC: R v MD, NA, BM,JT [2005] NSWSC 344
Case: [2005] NSWSC 344
Decision Date: 12 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved four juvenile offenders who were charged with manslaughter and unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The four defendants, referred to as MD, NA, BM, and JT, were all involved in an incident that resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The incident occurred when the defendants were driving a car, and one of them was handling a firearm. The firearm accidentally discharged, striking and killing the pedestrian.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the defendants, considering their age and the nature of the offence. The court had to determine whether to impose a custodial sentence, a community-based order, or a combination of both. Furthermore, the court had to consider the principles of sentencing juvenile offenders, as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), and the impact of the defendants' age on the sentencing decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court first considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, emphasising the seriousness of the defendants' actions that led to the death of the pedestrian. The court also took into account the defendants' ages, their backgrounds, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court held that the defendants' actions were reckless and demonstrated a disregard for the safety of others. However, given their young age, the court considered it appropriate to impose a sentence that would allow for their rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court ultimately decided to impose a combination of custodial sentences and community-based orders for each defendant, taking into consideration the individual circumstances of each case.

The final orders of the court involved MD being sentenced to a custodial sentence of three years and six months, with a non-parole period of two years, followed by a supervision order for a further two years and six months. NA was sentenced to a custodial sentence of two years and six months, with a non-parole period of 18 months, followed by a supervision order for a further two years. BM was sentenced to a custodial sentence of two years, with a non-parole period of 12 months, followed by a supervision order for a further two years. Lastly, JT was sentenced to a custodial sentence of one year and six months, with a non-parole period of nine months, followed by a supervision order for a further two years. The court also ordered all defendants to participate in rehabilitation programs and counselling services during their sentences.

Orders