R v Sjahadi - [2013] NSWSC 540

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sjahadi [2013] NSWSC 540
Hearing dates: 12 April 2013
Decision date: 10 May 2013
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
For the offence of murder, offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years commencing on 11 December 2010 and expiring on 10 December 2024 with a balance of term of 5 years expiring on 10 December 2029; for the offence of breaching the apprehended domestic violence order, offender sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 9 months commencing on 11 December 2024 and expiring on 10 September 2025.

Catchwords: CRIME - sentence - murder - stabbing - early plea
CRIME - sentence - breach apprehended domestic violence order
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Eddy Sjahadi (offender)
Representation: Counsel:
P Leask (Crown)
C Watson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
IBM Cavanagh (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/411739
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Eddy Sjahadi stands to be sentenced after pleading guilty to the murder of his sister-in-law, Lie Sjahadi. The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life: s 19A of the Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a standard non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment: s 54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The offender pleaded guilty to the offence at an early stage in the Local Court. However, upon being committed to this Court for sentence, he did not adhere to his plea. It was explained to me at the proceedings on sentence that, after the plea of guilty was entered, the offender's legal representatives formed the view that it was necessary to investigate an issue as to the offender's state of mind at the time of the offence, particularly as to the extent and impact of his intoxication due to the ingestion of prescription drugs.

The Crown conceded that the issue of intoxication was not confected and was properly the subject of further investigation and advice from appropriate experts. Throughout the investigation of the issue, it remained clear to the Crown and the Court that the offender accepted that his acts caused the death of the deceased, the only issue being his state of mind. In the circumstances, the Crown acknowledged that the utilitarian value of the plea combined with the degree of pre-trial disclosure by the defence, whilst not at the level of a plea entered at the earliest opportunity, remained high. The Crown submitted that it would be open to the Court to allow a discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea of between 15% and 25% but stopping short of 25%. I consider it appropriate to allow a discount towards the higher end of that range.

The circumstances of the offence were set out in an agreed statement of…

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 Sjahadi

Details

AGLC: R v Sjahadi [2013] NSWSC 540
Case: [2013] NSWSC 540
Decision Date: 10 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sjahadi came before the court, where the defendant, Sjahadi, was charged with the murder of a person he stabbed. Additionally, Sjahadi faced charges of breaching an apprehended domestic violence order. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for these serious offences. The central legal issues before the court involved assessing the gravity of the murder and the breach of the domestic violence order, and how these should inform the sentencing.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the murder, including the defendant's early guilty plea, which was considered a mitigating factor. The court also reviewed the facts surrounding the breach of the domestic violence order, which highlighted the defendant's ongoing disregard for legal protections designed to safeguard the victim. The court was required to balance these factors against the need for punishment and deterrence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the murder was of high severity, and the breach of the domestic violence order demonstrated a pattern of behaviour that endangered the victim.

In determining the sentence, the court gave significant weight to the early guilty plea, which led to a reduction in the sentence for the murder charge. However, the court also recognised the need for a sentence that adequately reflected the seriousness of the breach of the domestic violence order. After considering all the evidence and arguments presented, the court imposed a sentence that addressed both offences, ensuring it served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court's decision balanced the defendant's early plea with the gravity of the crimes committed.

Orders