R v Sheather - [2011] NSWSC 1239

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sheather [2011] NSWSC 1239
Hearing dates: 20 June 2011
Decision date: 21 October 2011
Before: Hoeben J
Decision:
For the crime of murdering Brett Donald Jones, Ricky John Sheather is sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 15 years. The non-parole period is to commence on 6 December 2009 and is to expire on 5 December 2024 and the balance of term of five years is to expire on 5 December 2029. The earliest date on which Ricky John Sheather will be eligible for release on parole will be 5 December 2024.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - intention to inflict grievous bodily harm - significant level of intoxication - whether personality disorder contributed to offence - guilty plea - standard non-parole period not applicable
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Maxwell v R [2007] NSWCCA 304; 177 A Crim R 498
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ricky John Sheather (Offender)
Representation: Mr PJ Barnett SC (Crown)
Mr TJ Golding (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/274905
Publication restriction: ---

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HOEBEN J : The Offender, Ricky John Sheather, is sentenced for the offence of murder. He pleaded guilty to that offence on 20 June 2011 which was the first day of his trial. The Offender has been in custody since his arrest on 6 December 2009. This was the date on which the offence occurred.

Factual Background to Offence

The Offender was born in October 1967 and is now 44. He was aged 42 at the time of the offence.

The Offender had been in a relationship with Fiona Duckett for about 15 months. She and her two sons had initially lived with the Offender in his flat in Wauchope and, for about two months before 6 December 2009, Ms Duckett and her sons lived in Flobern Street, Wauchope. The Offender was a frequent visitor to these premises, often staying overnight.

The deceased, Brett Donald Jones, had a son who was also known as Brett Ritchie. The son was aged 24 at the time of the offence and the deceased was aged 41. They were known as "Little Brett" and "Big Brett" respectively.

The Offender and the deceased had known each other since school days. It would seem that over the years, there had been instances and occasions of acrimony - even some physical conflict between them. The best description of a somewhat volatile relationship is that given by a witness, Michael Donovan:

"Ricky and Brett had their fights with each other but were good mates and would drink with each other and say hello."

Given the circumstances in which the offence occurred, I am not prepared to find that the Offender and deceased were enemies and that they hated each other as was suggested…

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 Sheather

Details

AGLC: R v Sheather [2011] NSWSC 1239
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1239
Decision Date: 21 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sheather involved the defendant, Sheather, who was convicted of murder. The primary dispute was whether the defendant's significant level of intoxication at the time of the offence, combined with a personality disorder, should mitigate his sentence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to decide whether Sheather's intoxication and personality disorder should reduce the severity of his sentence and whether the standard non-parole period was applicable.

The legal issues before the court included the extent to which Sheather's level of intoxication and personality disorder could be considered mitigating factors in his sentencing. Additionally, the court had to determine if the standard non-parole period, which is typically applied in murder cases, should be applied in this instance. The court examined case law and statutory provisions to assess these issues.

The court found that while Sheather's intoxication and personality disorder were significant factors, they did not sufficiently mitigate his culpability to warrant a departure from the standard non-parole period. The court concluded that Sheather's intoxication, though considerable, did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. Furthermore, the court determined that the personality disorder, while a relevant consideration, did not negate the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the standard non-parole period was upheld. The court emphasised the need to balance the circumstances of the offence with the principles of deterrence and retribution in sentencing.

Sheather was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering both mitigating and aggravating factors in determining an appropriate sentence for a murder conviction.

Orders