R v Sheridan (No.2) - [2022] NSWSC 1634

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sheridan (No.2) [2022] NSWSC 1634
Hearing dates: 18 November 2022
Date of orders: 09 December 2022
Decision date: 09 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) For the offence of the murder of Hamish Dunn, I impose a sentence of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 17 years with a balance of term of 8 years to commence on 16 March 2021.
(2) The first date upon which the Offender will be eligible to be released on parole is 15 March 2038.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Murder — Sentence after trial —Deceased child killed in his bedroom — Finding of intention to kill — Objective seriousness of the offence fell just below the mid-range — History of mental illness and drug abuse and addiction — Offence occurred in the context of acute intoxication — Finding of remorse — Offender’s conduct prior to and at trial facilitated the administration of justice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 ss 19A(1), 23A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Pt 4, Div 1A, ss 3A, 21A, 22, 22A, 30E(3), 44(2)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 ss 4, 28

Cases Cited:
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Gagalowicz [2005] NSWCCA 452
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Texts Cited:
Not applicable

Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Chadley Sheridan (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
B Robinson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Ramsland Laidler Solicitors (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/74828
Publication restriction: The name of the child victim must not be published or broadcast in a way that connects them with these proceedings: s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

Judgment

On 15 March 2021, Hamish Dunn (“the Deceased”) was killed by strangulation by Chadley Sheridan (“the Offender”) whilst in his bedroom at home at Charlestown in the Newcastle area.
The Offender was arrested in the early hours of the following morning, 16 March 2021, and charged with the murder of the Deceased.
On 15 September 2022, after a trial which lasted seven days, a jury found the Offender guilty of the murder of the Deceased.
It is now time for the Offender to be sentenced for his crime.
The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is life imprisonment: s 19A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. A standard non-parole period of 25 years applies: Pt 4, Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”). The maximum term of imprisonment and the standard non‑parole period are guideposts to which…

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 Sheridan (No.2)

Details

AGLC: R v Sheridan (No.2) [2022] NSWSC 1634
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1634
Decision Date: 09 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sheridan (No.2) involved the appellant, Sheridan, who was convicted of the murder of his deceased child. The dispute in this case centred around the appropriate sentencing for Sheridan, following his conviction for murder. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue the Court had to address was determining the appropriate sentence for Sheridan, considering the objective seriousness of the offence, the context in which it was committed, Sheridan's history of mental illness and drug abuse, and the degree of remorse shown by the offender.

The Court examined the evidence and arguments presented regarding the objective seriousness of the offence, which fell just below the mid-range. The Court also considered the context of the offence, including Sheridan's acute intoxication at the time, and the history of mental illness and drug abuse. The Court acknowledged that Sheridan's conduct prior to and during the trial had facilitated the administration of justice and the finding of remorse. In light of these factors, the Court weighed the appropriate sentence for Sheridan, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offence, the context in which it was committed, and the offender's history and remorse.

After careful consideration of the evidence and arguments, the Court determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate. The Court found that the sentence reflected the objective seriousness of the offence, the context in which it was committed, and Sheridan's history and remorse. The Court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and took into account the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The Court made no further orders in relation to the case. The decision in R v Sheridan (No.2) serves as a reminder of the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence, and the need to balance the objective seriousness of the offence with the offender's history, context, and remorse.

Orders