R v Paterson; R v O'Brien - [2020] NSWSC 221

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paterson; R v O’Brien [2020] NSWSC 221
Hearing dates: 5 March 2020
Date of orders: 12 March 2020
Decision date: 12 March 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
Mr Paterson is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 years and 5 months, commencing 7 August 2017 and concluding 6 January 2030, with the remainder of term of 4 years and 1 month concluding 6 February 2034.
Mr O’Brien is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months, commencing 24 December 2017 and concluding 23 June 2023, with the remainder of term of 3 years concluding 23 June 2026.
Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – MANSLAUGHTER – plea of guilty accepted – two co-offenders in substantially different circumstances – requirement to impose substantially different sentences – sentences imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hunter Quarries Pty Limited v Morrison; Badior v Morrison (2017) 96 NSWLR 658; [2017] NSWCCA 326
Jimmy v The Queen (2010) 77 NSWLR 540; [2010] NSWCCA 60
Kutchera v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 121
The Queen v Aghili Nategh (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1892
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ryan Vincent Paterson (Offender)
Benjamin Keith O’Brien (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Marr (Crown)
N Steel (Offender Paterson)
S Boland (Offender O’Brien)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Panwar Legal (Offender Paterson)
Benjamin Leonardo – The Defenders (Offender O’Brien)

File Number(s): 2017/200939; 2017/200589

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The Court is required to sentence Ryan Vincent Paterson and Benjamin Keith O’Brien, each of whom has pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Jayden Mason on 25 June 2017 at New Lambton Heights.
Each offender is guilty of the manslaughter on the basis of joint criminal enterprise. There are agreed facts, which it is unnecessary to recite in full. Not unusually, alcohol and/or drugs was a significant factor in the conduct of the deceased and the offenders.

Brief Outline of Facts

On 24 June 2017, the deceased had been drinking and playing cards. He had consumed, with another, half a bottle of gin and the deceased had also consumed two or three cans of premixed bourbon. He left the house at which he had been drinking at about 8 PM and went to Wyong Leagues Club, where he stood in line behind two other males and began talking to them. He played the poker machines with them and drank during…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Paterson; R v O'Brien and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 221
Decision Date: 12 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Paterson and O'Brien, were charged with manslaughter and pleaded guilty. The trial judge accepted their pleas and proceeded to sentence them. Paterson and O'Brien were co-offenders in a manslaughter case, but their circumstances were substantially different, and thus the court was required to impose sentences that reflected these differences. Paterson was the driver of the vehicle that struck and killed the victim, while O'Brien was a passenger who encouraged Paterson to drive at a high speed. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge could impose substantially different sentences on the co-offenders given their differing roles in the commission of the crime.

The court held that the trial judge was required to impose substantially different sentences on Paterson and O'Brien. The court emphasised the importance of individualising sentences to reflect the particular circumstances of each offender, including their degree of involvement in the offence and their respective roles. The court held that while co-offenders may be sentenced together, the sentence imposed on each must reflect their individual culpability and the circumstances of their involvement in the offence. The court further held that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in imposing different sentences on Paterson and O'Brien, taking into account their differing roles in the commission of the crime.

The court upheld the sentences imposed by the trial judge, finding that they were appropriate and reflected the differing roles of Paterson and O'Brien in the commission of the crime. The court held that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised their discretion in a manner that was consistent with the principles of sentencing in Australia. The sentences imposed on Paterson and O'Brien were therefore upheld, with the court finding that they were proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the individual culpability of each offender.

The court made no further orders in relation to the case. The sentences imposed on Paterson and O'Brien were upheld, and the matter was concluded.

Orders