R v Scott Alan MAY (No 7) - [2008] NSWSC 971

CITATION: R v Scott Alan MAY (No 7) [2008] NSWSC 971

HEARING DATE(S): 7 May 2008-8 May 2008, 12 May 2008-15 May 2008, 19 May 2008-23 May 2008, 26 May 2008-30 May 2008, 2 June 2008-4 June 2008, 29 August 2008.

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 September 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Rothman J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 27 years commencing 16 January 2007 and concluding 15 January 2034, the balance of term being a further 9 years expiring on 15 January 2043; eligible for release on 15 January 2034.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – intent to kill – shooting – drug related – not guilty plea – objective and subjective circumstances – above mid range of seriousness – sentence imposed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Scott Alan May (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/4832

COUNSEL: A Cook SC - Trial (Crown)
J Kiely SC - Sentence (Crown)
T Watts (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ford Criminal Lawyers (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ROTHMAN J

19 SEPTEMBER 2008

2007/4832 R v Scott Alan MAY (No 7)
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: At about 10.15pm on 2 May 2003, Ryan Burnes shot and killed Andrew Heavens. Mr Burnes murdered Mr Heavens at the request of, and by agreement with, Scott Alan May.

2 The shooting occurred at Callan Park in Rozelle, about 200 metres west of the Balmain Road entrance to the Park. Mr Burnes pleaded guilty to the murder and was sentenced by Fullerton J. Mr May pleaded not guilty, was tried before a jury and convicted.

3 The crime of murder is regarded as the most serious of crimes because it involves the felonious taking of human life. The maximum sentence for the crime is life imprisonment, which penalty is imposed in the worst category of murder. The legislature has also set a standard non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment, which period applies to the hypothetical mid-range offence.

4 Even within the crime of murder, a crime perceived as the most serious because of society’s view of the sanctity of human life, there is a range of culpability associated with the crime. In order to determine the objective features, which measure the culpability of Mr May and deal with his subjective circumstances, it is necessary to set out the circumstances of the offence. I do so as briefly as I possibly can. Before doing so, I briefly set out the purpose of sentencing in a case such as this.

5 The purpose in sentencing any offender, even those charged with murder, seeks to resolve what are often, if not necessarily, conflicting goals. In serious crimes such as murder, the importance of punishment and public deterrence loom large. These include the protection of society, personal and public deterrence, retribution and reform. Each of these factors, particularly the protective nature of sentencing, personal…

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 Scott Alan MAY (No 7)

Details

AGLC: R v Scott Alan May (No 7) [2008] NSWSC 971
Case: [2008] NSWSC 971
Decision Date: 19 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott Alan May (No 7) involved the defendant, Scott Alan May, who was charged with murder. The court heard the matter in a criminal jurisdiction, and the defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge. The dispute centred around the intent and circumstances of the shooting, which was drug-related. The prosecution argued that the defendant had intentionally killed the victim, while the defence contested the intent and circumstances surrounding the act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent to kill. This involved a consideration of both the objective and subjective circumstances of the case. The court also needed to determine the appropriate range of seriousness for the offence, as well as the sentence to be imposed on the defendant if found guilty.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the defendant's intent to kill beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered both objective and subjective circumstances, concluding that the evidence supported a finding that the defendant had intentionally caused the death of the victim. The court found the case to be above the mid-range of seriousness due to the nature of the crime and the circumstances in which it occurred. The court imposed a sentence on the defendant, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and other relevant factors.

The final orders of the court were that Scott Alan May be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the crime of murder, with specific details of the sentence outlined in the judgment. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, the legal principles applied, and the specific circumstances of the case.

Orders