R v SB; R v AE; R v MG - [2015] NSWSC 659

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v SB; R v AE; R v MG
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWSC 659
Hearing Date(s):	6 March 2015; 13 March 2015; 27 March 2015
Date of Orders:	1 May 2015
Decision Date:	1 May 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Hall J
Decision:	SB Convicted of the offence of murder. Sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of 8 years to date from 23 December 2012 and to expire on 22 December 2020, with a parole period of 4 years to commence on 23 December 2020 and to expire on 22 December 2024. AE Convicted of the offence of murder. Sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of 8 years to date from 20 November 2014 and to expire on 19 November 2022, with a parole period of 4 years to commence on 20 November 2022, to expire on 19 November 2026. MG Convicted of the offence of murder. Sentenced to a non-parole period of imprisonment of 8 years to date from 25 November 2014 and to expire on 24 November 2022 with a parole period of 4 years to commence on 25 November 2022 and to expire on 24 November 2026. In relation to each of SB, AE and MG Order made pursuant to s 19(1) and 19(3) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, that each of that the offenders, SB, MG and AE, serve their non-parole periods of the respective sentences imposed as a juvenile offender until the day upon which each attains the age of 21 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder – Juvenile offenders – Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise – Verdicts of manslaughter and murder between co-offenders – Application of principle of parity – Finding of special circumstances – Variation to statutory ratio for non-parole period – Relevance of strict bail conditions - Whether offenders should serve sentence in juvenile detention – Order made directing that offenders serve their non-parole periods as juvenile offenders until attaining age of 21
Legislation Cited:	Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Green v R [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462; (2011) 86 ALJR 36 Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCA 60; (2010) 77 NSWLR 540 KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 R v AEM (Snr) [2002] NSWCCA 58 R v AN [2014] NSWSC 1879 R v Dennis (NSWCCA, 14 December 1992, unreported) R v Fowler [2003] NSWCCA 321 R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v JH [2014] NSWSC 1845 R v JP [2014] NSWSC 698 R v Khamas (1999) 108 A Crim R 499 R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 R v Webb [2004] NSWCCA 330; 149 A Crim R 167
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) SB (Offender) AE (Offender) MG (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: P Leask (Crown) J Stratton SC; R Armitage (SB)

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 SB; R v AE; R v MG 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: [2015] NSWSC 659
Decision Date: 1 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved three defendants, SB, AE, and MG, who were charged with offences arising from a fatal stabbing incident. The defendants were juveniles at the time of the offence. SB and AE were convicted of murder, while MG was convicted of manslaughter. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for these juvenile offenders, given the nature of their involvement in the crime and their age at the time of the offence. The court had to determine whether the principle of parity, which requires sentences to be proportionate, should be applied in this case. Another significant issue was the relevance of strict bail conditions imposed prior to the trial and their impact on the sentencing. The court also had to decide whether the defendants should serve their sentences in juvenile detention or adult prison, considering their age and the seriousness of the crime.

The court found that while the principle of parity was important, it needed to be balanced with the need for just punishment and deterrence. The court held that the strict bail conditions imposed on SB and AE did not warrant a reduction in their sentences, as they did not directly influence the commission of the crime. Regarding the appropriate sentencing, the court found that given the extended joint criminal enterprise and the serious nature of the crime, special circumstances were present, warranting a variation to the statutory non-parole period. The court also concluded that due to the defendants' age at the time of the offence, they should serve their non-parole periods in juvenile detention until they attain the age of 21. The court ordered that SB and AE serve their non-parole periods in juvenile detention, while MG's sentence was to be served in adult prison. This decision balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation for these juvenile offenders.

Orders