R v Ney

Case [2021] NSWSC 529 14 May 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ney [2021] NSWSC 529
Hearing dates: 29 March 2021, 30 March 2021
Date of orders: 14 May 2021
Decision date: 14 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1. The Offender, Mert Ney, is convicted of the offence of the murder of Michaela Dunn and the offence of wounding Lin Bo with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
2. The Offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for a term of 44 years comprising a non-parole period of 33 years commencing on 13 August 2019 and expiring on 12 August 2052 with a balance of term of 11 years commencing on 13 August 2052 and expiring on 12 August 2063.
3. The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 12 August 2052, although it will be matter for the State Parole Authority to determine whether release on parole is appropriate in the Offender’s case.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing following pleas of guilty – murder and wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – gravity of offences – whether sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed for murder – relevance of mental condition of Offender on sentence – life sentence not appropriate – very substantial aggregate term of imprisonment warranted – aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 44 years with non-parole period of 33 years

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health Act 2007
Criminal Code (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Alou v R (2019) 101 NSWLR 319; [2019] NSWCCA 231
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Knight v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 126; [2006] NSWCCA 292
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
Potts v R (2012) 227 A Crim R 217; [2012] NSWCCA 229
R v Dong [2021] NSWCCA 82
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hraichie (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 973
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v Shoma [2019] VSC 367
R v Stonestreet [2020] NSWCCA 212
Tepania v R (2018) 275 A Crim R 233; [2018] NSWCCA 247
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Texts Cited:
---

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mert Ney (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr CM Everson (Crown)
Ms BJ Rigg SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Oxford Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/256082
Publication restriction: ---

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

JOHNSON J: The Offender, Mert Ney, appears for sentence for grave crimes of violence committed by him in the course of extraordinary and tragic events which occurred in the City of Sydney on 13 August 2019.
Following pleas of guilty,…

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 Ney

Details

AGLC: R v Ney [2021] NSWSC 529
Case: [2021] NSWSC 529
Decision Date: 14 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ney was heard in a higher Australian court, where the appellant, Ney, sought to appeal his sentence following his convictions for murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The trial judge had sentenced Ney to life imprisonment for the murder and to a concurrent term of imprisonment for the wounding offence. Ney contended that the sentence should be reviewed, arguing that his mental condition warranted a different approach to sentencing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment for the murder was appropriate, particularly in light of the appellant's mental condition. The court needed to determine the gravity of the offences and whether the severity of the sentence adequately reflected the culpability of the offender and the principles of justice. Furthermore, the court had to weigh the relevance of Ney's mental condition in the sentencing process.

The court considered the severity of the crimes committed by Ney, noting the heinous nature of the murder and the accompanying wounding offence. It found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the gravity of the offences, and that a very substantial aggregate term of imprisonment was warranted. The court held that a life sentence was not appropriate due to the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the appellant's mental condition, which, while relevant, did not warrant a lesser sentence. The court upheld the trial judge's aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 44 years, with a non-parole period of 33 years.

Orders