R v Ronald Shiels - [2011] NSWSC 1177

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald SHIELS [2011] NSWSC 1177
Hearing dates: 30 September 2011
Decision date: 07 October 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Barr AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years, commencing on 20 April 2010 and expiring on 19 April 2023.
The balance of the term of the sentence will be 7 years, expiring on 19 April 2030.
The offender will become eligible for release to parole on 19 April 2023.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown - Regina
Accused - Ronald SHIELS
Representation: Counsel:
Crown - BH Hughes
Accused - JP Watts
Solicitors:
Crown - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Accused - Legal Aid Commission of NSW

File Number(s): 2010/96389

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 29 August 2011 I found the offender, Ronald Shiels, guilty of the murder of his father Trevor Shiels. At the time of the deceased's death he was just turning 42 years old and the offender was not quite 21 years old. They had generally got on well together over the years. The two used to do things together. They spent some time working on a motor vehicle and both derived enjoyment from each other's company in that endeavour. The deceased was a big man, a driver, 1.75 metres tall and weighing 84 kilograms. The offender is of slight build.

When he was about 15 years old, the offender began to use cannabis, and from then he used it regularly. During the two years or so before the death of the deceased he began using it heavily. He drank alcohol from the age of 16 years, taking it weekly until he was drunk. The deceased used alcohol and drank to excess on occasions. When he did he became quarrelsome and tended to be violent. Sometimes he became a bully and occasionally there was violence between him and the offender.

In August 2007 the offender was charged with assault, threatening violence and causing fear and with having custody of an offensive instrument in a public place. He was granted the benefit of 12 month bonds.

His behaviour began to change about two years before the events giving rise to the charge. He fell into a pattern of repetitive speech and appeared on occasions not to understand what he was being told. What he said sometimes made no sense. He stopped looking after his appearance. He continued to use cannabis heavily and to drink regularly to drunkenness.

He had a girlfriend and they lived together at his parents' house. In April 2008 she gave birth to a child.

In December 2008 an incident took place after the offender had been out with his sister. When they returned home his sister had a sore eye, not the fault of the offender. The deceased, who had been drinking, jumped to the conclusion that the offender had assaulted her, remonstrated with him and seized him by the throat. A struggle…

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 Ronald Shiels

Details

AGLC: R v Ronald Shiels [2011] NSWSC 1177
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1177
Decision Date: 07 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Shiels was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The matter was appealed to the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The appeal centred on the trial judge's consideration of the appropriate punishment for the heinous nature of the crime and the offender's culpability.

The High Court examined the sentencing principles and the trial judge's application of them. The court noted that the trial judge had correctly identified the gravity of the crime and the offender's culpability. However, the court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the principles of proportionality and the need for the sentence to reflect community standards of justice. The court concluded that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and ordered a re-sentencing by a different judge.

The High Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime while also considering the offender's personal circumstances. The court stressed that the sentence must not only be proportionate to the crime but also reflect community standards of justice. The High Court ultimately found that the original sentence did not adequately balance these considerations and was therefore manifestly excessive. The case was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

Orders