R v Percy, Arnold, Isaacs, Sulman - [2005] NSWSC 1244

CITATION:
R v Percy, Arnold, Isaacs, Sulman [2005] NSWSC 1244

HEARING DATE(S): 2 June 2005, 24 June 2005, 8 July 2005, 2 September 2005.

JUDGMENT DATE :

2 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Latham J at 1

DECISION:
Manslaughter - SHANE PERCY; Non-parole period of 5 years to date from 4 August 2004 to expire on 3 August 2009. The balance of the term of the sentence is 4 years expiring on 3 August 2013.; ; Accessory before the fact VICKI IRENE ARNOLD; Non-parole period of 18 months from 5 February 2004 to expire 4 August 2005. The balance of the term shall be 18 months, expiring on 4 February 2007; Accessory After The Fact of Manslaughter Vicki Irene Arnold : Non-parole period of 12 months to date from 5 February 2005 and to expire 4 February 2006. The balance of the term shall be 2 years expiring on 4 February 2008.; ; Accessory Before the Fact of Manslaughter GILLIAN ISAACS ; Non parole period of 12 months to date from 5 February 2004 to expire 4 February 2005. The balance of the term shall be 12 months to expire 4 February 2006. Accessory after the Fact ; Non-parole period of 13 months to date from 5 August 2004 and to expire on 4 September 2005. The balance of the term shall be 11 months expiring on 4 August 2006.; ; Accessory After the Fact - JASON CHRISTOPHER SULMAN; Non-parole period of 19 months to date from 5 February 2004 and to expire on 4 September 2005, the balance of the term expiring on 4 February 2006.

CATCHWORDS:
Sentence - Manslaughter - Accessory Before and After Fact.

CASES CITED:
The Queen v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
Regina v Woodland [2001] NSWSC 416

PARTIES:
Regina, Shane Percy, Vicki Irene Arnold, Gilllian Isaacs, Jason Christopher Sulman

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2004/2001, 2004/2002, 2004/2003, 2004/2186

COUNSEL:
Crown - T Thorpe
Accused - A Webb (Percy)
Accused - Mr Paish (Arnold)
Accused - Mr Conomos (Isaacs)
Accused - Mr Conomos (Sulman)

SOLICITORS:
Crown - I Knight
Accused - S O'Connor (Percy)
Accused - R Hill (Arnold)
Accused - M Vaughan (Isaacs)
Accused - M Vaughan (Sulman

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 16 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

2 SEPTEMBER 2005

2004/2001 REGINA v SHANE PERCY
2004/2002 REGINA v VICKI IRENE ARNOLD
2004/2003 REGINA v GILLIAN ISAACS
2004/2186 REGINA v JASON CHRISTOPHER SULMAN

SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: I propose dealing with the offenders in turn commencing with Mr Percy, then Ms Arnold, Ms Isaacs then Mr Sulman.

2 In the late afternoon of the 11 September 2003 Grant Whitney, who was known to the offenders, Shane Percy, Vicki Arnold, Gillian Isaacs and Jason Sulman, was invited to Ms Isaac's home by Ms Isaac in the knowledge he would be assaulted by Shane Percy. At some point after Mr Whitney arrived he was struck repeatedly to the head and body with an implement (most likely a pool…

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 Percy, Arnold, Isaacs, Sulman 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: [2005] NSWSC 1244
Decision Date: 2 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of R v Percy, Arnold, Isaacs, Sulman, the defendants were found guilty of manslaughter and were subsequently sentenced by the High Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute over the extent of the defendants' involvement in the crime and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The defendants were all accessory before and after the fact in a manslaughter case, with varying degrees of involvement.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in imposing different sentences on the defendants based on their varying degrees of involvement in the crime. The defendants argued that the trial judge had not properly considered the principles of sentencing for accessory before and after the fact, and that the sentences imposed were excessive. The prosecution maintained that the sentences were appropriate given the defendants' involvement in the crime.

The court held that the trial judge had indeed failed to properly consider the principles of sentencing for accessory before and after the fact. The court held that the sentences imposed were excessive and ordered that the defendants be re-sentenced. In particular, the court held that the sentence for the accessory after the fact should be significantly reduced, given the lesser degree of involvement in the crime. The court also held that the sentences for the other defendants were appropriate, given their respective degrees of involvement in the crime. The defendants were subsequently re-sentenced by the trial judge in accordance with the court's directions.

Orders