R v Michael Jackson - [2009] NSWSC 168

CITATION: R v Michael JACKSON [2009] NSWSC 168
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 04/03/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
27 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 5 1/2 years to date from 31 October 2007 with a balance of term of 2 1/2 years from 1 May 2013. The offender is eligible to be released to parole on 30 April 2013.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Manslaughter - death arising in armed robbery offence - offender not the killer.

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Webb [2008] NSWSC 1351
R v Frazer and Spencer [2007] NSWSC 1449
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

PARTIES: Regina v Michael John Jackson

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/5371

COUNSEL: J Pickering - Crown
L Wells - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
S O'Connor - Offender

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

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 27 MARCH 2009

2008/5371 REGINA v Michael John JACKSON
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter arising from the death of Mohammed Kader on 28 January 2007 during the course of an armed robbery committed on an Indian restaurant in Petersham. The deceased was an employee of the restaurant. The deceased was actually killed by a co-offender, Webb, who has been sentenced for his murder: see [2008] NSWSC 1351.

2 It is unnecessary to set out the facts in any great detail. The offender and Webb agreed to commit an armed robbery and for that purpose stole a motor vehicle. Webb armed himself with a “club lock” taken from the vehicle and went into the restaurant. The offender waited in the vehicle initially. Webb walked to the far end where the deceased was washing up in a sink. An altercation occurred between the two during which Webb picked up a knife and stabbed the deceased. While this was taking place the offender entered the restaurant and stole the cash register. The two men fled to the motor vehicle and made their escape. Later the stolen car was located and the empty cash register found near by.

3 There was fingerprint and DNA evidence at the scene and telephone intercepts that linked the offender with Webb and the commission of the offence. The offender was arrested on 30 May 2007. While in custody he spoke by telephone to his de facto and police lawfully intercepted those calls. They contained material that indicated the offender’s involvement in the robbery. Webb was arrested on 4 June 2007.

4 The offender’s liability for manslaughter is based upon an agreement with Webb to rob the restaurant, Webb’s role being to threaten the occupants with a weapon while the offender took the cash register. The agreement did not include the offender foreseeing the possibility that Webb would use…

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 Michael Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Michael Jackson [2009] NSWSC 168
Case: [2009] NSWSC 168
Decision Date: 27 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia recently heard an appeal in the matter of R v Michael Jackson, where the offender was convicted of manslaughter as an accessory to an armed robbery during which the deceased was killed. Jackson was not the person who committed the killing, but was involved in planning and assisting the armed robbery. The central issue before the court was whether the court could impose a sentence for manslaughter where the offender did not directly cause the death, but was an accessory to the crime in which the death occurred.

The legal issue revolved around the appropriate sentence for an offender who did not directly cause the death but was involved in a crime that resulted in death. The court had to determine if Jackson's sentence should reflect the seriousness of the underlying offence, which was armed robbery, or the fact that he was not the actual killer. The defence argued that Jackson's involvement was peripheral and that a lesser sentence would be appropriate, while the prosecution contended that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the armed robbery offence.

The court, in its decision, recognised the need to balance the seriousness of the underlying offence with the offender's actual role in the death. It held that while Jackson was not the direct perpetrator of the killing, his involvement in the armed robbery, which led to the death, warranted a sentence that reflected the gravity of the underlying offence. The court emphasised that the sentence should not only be punitive but also serve to deter similar conduct in the future. Ultimately, the court decided that Jackson's sentence should reflect both his role as an accessory and the severity of the armed robbery offence, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and just.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, affirming that it appropriately balanced the various factors involved. The court's decision provides clarity on sentencing for accessorial liability in cases where the underlying offence results in death.

Orders