R v PO

Case [2017] NSWSC 757 9 June 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PO [2017] NSWSC 757
Hearing dates: 22 May 2017
Decision date: 09 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
1. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 9 years commencing on 21 September 2014 and expiring 20 September 2023, with a balance of term of 6 years expiring on 20 September 2029. Eligible for release to parole on 21 September 2023.
2. The offender is to serve his sentence as a juvenile offender until he turns 21 years of age.

Catchwords: SENTENCE – murder – stabbing – intention to cause grievous bodily harm – juvenile offender – finding of special circumstances – variation to statutory ratio for non-parole period
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; 201 A Crim R 379
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v SB; R v AE; R v MG [2015] NSWSC 659
R v SSA; R v Siose [2007] NSWSC 1202;
R v YS [2014] NSWCCA 226
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
PO (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Agius SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/277363
Publication restriction: Section 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 operates to prohibit publication of the name of the offender or any juvenile witness or anything that may tend to identify them.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: At about 1.35am on 21 September 2014 a fight involving four males erupted in Horton Street in the central business district of Port Macquarie. Within minutes of the fight commencing Charlie Farmer had suffered two penetrating and immediately incapacitating stab wounds to his chest and abdomen. Attempts to resuscitate him at the scene were unsuccessful. He was pronounced deceased at 3.12am. He was aged 25.
Later that day, PO was charged with Mr Farmer's murder and on 10 April 2017 he was convicted after trial of that offence. He was aged 16 years and 8 months at the time of the offence. He has been in custody since his arrest. He is now aged 19 years and 4 months.
On arraignment the offender entered a plea of not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. Although the Crown did not accept the plea of guilty in discharge of the indictment, the plea of guilty to manslaughter confined the issues at trial to whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that when the offender inflicted the fatal stab wounds he intended to either kill Mr Farmer or to inflict grievous bodily harm and, if that were established, whether the Crown could prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not stab Mr Farmer in self-defence.
By its verdict the jury must be taken to have found that when the offender stabbed Mr Farmer to the…

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 PO

Details

AGLC: R v PO [2017] NSWSC 757
Case: [2017] NSWSC 757
Decision Date: 09 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a juvenile offender who had committed a stabbing that resulted in the death of the victim. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of murder but argued that the stabbing was not intended to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to determine whether the offence carried a statutory minimum non-parole period and whether special circumstances existed that justified a reduction of this period.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory minimum non-parole period for murder applied to the offender due to their age. The court considered the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and whether the special circumstances test outlined in section 3A could be met. The court needed to examine the evidence presented and determine whether the offender's age and other mitigating factors warranted a variation from the statutory minimum non-parole period.

The court found that the statutory minimum non-parole period applied to the offender, as the evidence demonstrated that the stabbing was intentional and caused the victim's death. However, the court also found that special circumstances existed due to the offender's age and other mitigating factors. The court considered the offender's age, the circumstances of the offence, and the offender's prospects of rehabilitation. Based on this analysis, the court varied the statutory minimum non-parole period, resulting in a reduced non-parole period for the offender.

The final orders of the court included a conviction for murder and a sentence that incorporated the varied non-parole period, taking into account the special circumstances identified. The court's decision balanced the need for public protection with the offender's age and prospects for rehabilitation. The outcome reflected the court's consideration of both the statutory framework and the unique circumstances of the case.

Orders