Legal Research
Cases
R v Poynton (No 4)

R v Poynton (No 4)

Case [2018] NSWSC 1693 8 November 2018

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Murder

Aggravating and Mitigating Matters

Principle of Totality

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Poynton (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1693
Hearing dates: 26 October 2018
Date of orders: 08 November 2018
Decision date: 08 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Daniel Poynton is convicted of the murders of Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce.
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 years, 9 months commencing on 14 November 2014, with a non-parole period of 18 years and 6 months expiring on 13 May 2033, with the total sentence expiring on 13 August 2039.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder of two victims – murders occurred in one course of criminal conduct – guilty pleas entered – objective seriousness of offence – offender’s moral culpability – deterrence – aggravating and mitigating matters – principle of totality – victim impact statements – no finding of special circumstances – discount for guilty pleas – aggregate sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (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
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Haines v R [2016] NSWCCA 90
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Postiglione v The Queen 1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 [1974] HCA 26
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252; [2005] NSWCCA 253
R v KM [2004] NSWCCA 65
R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v Poynton [2016] NSWSC 615
R v Poynton (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1621
R v Poynton (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1772
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Daniel Poynton (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Cunneen SC (Crown)
Mr E Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/336896
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

During the early hours of 12 November 2014, Daniel Poynton, then aged only 21 years, murdered Jamie Edwards and Joelene Joyce on a country road where he had arranged to meet…

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 Poynton (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Poynton (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1693
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1693
Decision Date: 08 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Poynton (No 4) involved the sentencing of an offender who had pleaded guilty to the murder of two victims. The crimes were committed in a single course of criminal conduct. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, considering the objective seriousness of the offences, the moral culpability of the offender, the need for deterrence, and various aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also had to consider the principle of totality and take into account victim impact statements. The offender had entered guilty pleas, which warranted a discount in the sentence, and the court did not find any special circumstances that would warrant a harsher penalty.

The primary legal issue before the court was to balance the various considerations in imposing a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes while also taking into account the mitigating factors and the discount for the guilty pleas. The court had to weigh the moral culpability of the offender against the need for deterrence and the impact on the victims' families. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and adhered to the principle of totality, which requires that the total punishment for all crimes committed in a single course of conduct should not be disproportionate.

In delivering its judgment, the court thoroughly examined the objective seriousness of the murders, the offender's moral culpability, and the need for deterrence. It also considered the victim impact statements, which highlighted the profound effects of the crimes on the victims' families. The court determined that while the crimes were of extreme gravity, the discount for the guilty pleas was appropriate. After considering all relevant factors, the court imposed an aggregate sentence, taking into account the principle of totality and ensuring that the overall punishment was proportionate to the crimes committed. The court did not find any special circumstances that would warrant a harsher penalty.

Orders