R v MJR

Case [2010] NSWSC 653 18 June 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v MJR [2010] NSWSC 653

HEARING DATE(S): 17 May 2010, 18 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1

DECISION: 1. The Offender is convicted for the crimes of murder and aggravated break enter and steal to which he has pleaded guilty. For the offence of aggravated break enter and steal, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 for this offence, the Offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of two years and six months commencing on 24 April 2008 and expiring on 23 October 2010, with a balance of term of one year and six months commencing on 24 October 2010 and expiring on 23 April 2012.
2. For the offence of murder, taking into account the matters on the Form 1 for this offence, the Offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 11 years and one month commencing on 24 October 2009 and expiring on 23 November 2020, with a balance of term of five years and one month commencing on 24 November 2020 and expiring on 23 December 2025.
3. An order is made under s.19 Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 directing that the Offender serve his sentence up to the age of 21 years as a juvenile offender.
4. Although it remains a matter for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine under s.59 Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990, it is recommend that the Offender be detained in the Forensic Hospital for as long as is reasonably possible, in accordance with law, to assist the process of care and treatment, which will aid his rehabilitation and serve the public interest.
5. The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 23 November 2020.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - pleas of guilty - murder - aggravated break enter and steal - father murdered by 17-year old son - shotgun blast to head while father sleeping - prior good character - offender suffering from undiagnosed juvenile bipolar disorder at time of offence - offender now a correctional patient detained at Forensic Hospital - relevance of mental disorder and youth to sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1996
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
R v Holton [2004] NSWCCA 214
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102
Collon v R [2009] NSWCCA 187
IE v R [2008] NSWCCA 70
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; 182 A Crim R 571

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
MJR (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/7848

COUNSEL: Mr P Barnett SC (Crown)
Mr R Foord (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Flynn Conn (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH…

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 MJR

Details

AGLC: R v MJR [2010] NSWSC 653
Case: [2010] NSWSC 653
Decision Date: 18 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of a 17-year-old boy who had pleaded guilty to the murder of his father and an aggravated break and steal offence. The incident occurred when the boy, suffering from an undiagnosed juvenile bipolar disorder, shot his sleeping father in the head. The offender, who had no prior criminal history, was now a correctional patient detained at a Forensic Hospital. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the boy, considering his youth, mental disorder, and otherwise good character.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the relevance of the offender's mental disorder and his youth to the sentencing. The defence counsel argued that the offender's juvenile bipolar disorder, which was undiagnosed at the time of the offence, significantly impacted his behaviour and should be considered a mitigating factor. Additionally, the offender's age was also put forward as a mitigating factor. The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the gravity of the offence and the premeditated nature of the crime warranted a severe sentence, with little weight given to the offender's age or mental health issues.

The court, in delivering its judgment, considered the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the offender's youth and mental disorder. However, it also weighed these against the heinous nature of the crime and the offender's otherwise good character. Ultimately, the court decided that while the offender's age and mental disorder were significant mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the severity of the crime. The court sentenced the boy to a term of imprisonment, taking into account his age and mental health issues, while also ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence.

Orders