R v Sione; R v Dawson - [2024] NSWSC 846

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sione; R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 846
Hearing dates: 12 July 2024
Date of orders: 12 July 2024
Decision date: 12 July 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Sione: sentenced to imprisonment for 32 years with a non-parole period of 24 years
Dawson: sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 13 years

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – murder – bashing of child – offenders found guilty of murder on various bases of liability following judge alone trial – premediated and violent assault captured on video and posted to social media – rejection of submission that life sentence appropriate for one offender – reduced moral culpability on accounts of early disadvantage and cognitive impairment – significant criminal histories taken into account – issues of parity – special circumstances considered

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 61(1), 21(1)

Cases Cited:
BE v R [2024] NSWCCA 100
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
R v AD [2024] NSWSC 444
R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007
R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51
R v TB [2024] NSWSC 447

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Richard Sione (Offender)
Kayla Dawson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
T Ramrakha (Offender Sione)
P Johnson (Offender Dawson)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)(Crown)
Malouf Criminal Lawyers (Offender Sione)
Aaron Legal (Offender Dawson)

File Number(s): 2021/298703; 2021/225943
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

At the conclusion of a judge-only trial on 15 April 2024, Richard Sione and Kayla Dawson were each found guilty of the murder of Jason Galleghan.
Jason (whose mother consents to him being identified and to the use of his first name) was 16 years of age. He died after sustaining many blunt force injuries in an assault committed by multiple assailants in the bedroom of a house at Doonside on 4 August 2021.
Murder is a crime for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for life. Where the victim was a child the standard non-parole period is 25 years.

The offence

Submissions made in relation to sentence included references to various things that witnesses had said on particular topics. In describing the facts for the purpose of sentencing there will be the same approach as that taken at trial, that is to place no reliance in respect of important issues upon the evidence of witnesses whose credibility was disputed and unsupported either by other witnesses or acceptable objective evidence: R v Sione; R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 378 at [269].
The following, largely drawn from the verdict judgment ([63]-[71]), provides some background for the circumstances in which the assault occurred.

Background

The events occurred on Wednesday 4 August 2021 at a home in Perigee Close, Doonside. It is a north-facing two-bedroom home with front and back yards. Entry by foot is obtained by walking up…

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 Sione; R v Dawson 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: [2024] NSWSC 846
Decision Date: 12 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sione; R v Dawson, the appellants were found guilty of murder following a judge alone trial. The murders were committed in the course of a premeditated and violent assault on a child, which was captured on video and subsequently posted to social media. Both Sione and Dawson were convicted on different bases of liability, and subsequently appealed their sentences. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine whether a life sentence was appropriate for one of the offenders, considering submissions that argued for a reduced sentence due to early disadvantage and cognitive impairment, and whether these factors were sufficiently taken into account in the sentencing process.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the crime, the premeditation, and the violent nature of the assault. The video evidence highlighted the brutality of the attack, which was a significant factor in the offenders' convictions. The court also examined the appellants' criminal histories and assessed the impact of their early disadvantages and cognitive impairments on their moral culpability. While acknowledging these factors, the court determined that they did not warrant a departure from the usual sentencing approach for murder. The significant weight of the criminal histories, combined with the gravity of the offence, led the court to conclude that a life sentence was appropriate. The court also considered the need for parity in sentencing between the two offenders, ensuring that the sentences reflected the respective roles and culpability of each appellant.

In the end, the appeals against sentence were dismissed, and the original sentences of life imprisonment were upheld. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentences reflected the severity of the crimes and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The detailed examination of the circumstances and the individual culpability of each offender underscored the court's commitment to a fair and balanced approach to sentencing in murder cases.

Orders