Legal Research
Cases
R v Sloan

R v Sloan

Case [2024] NSWSC 952 2 August 2024

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sloan [2024] NSWSC 952
Hearing dates: 19 July 2024
Date of orders: 2 August 2024
Decision date: 02 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
For the offence of murder Robert Sloan I convict you and sentence you as follows:
(1) Imprisonment for a term of 25 years and 2 months to commence on 4 May 2022 and conclude on 3 July 2047.
(2) The non-parole period is 17 years and 6 months to commence on 4 May 2022 and conclude on 3 November 2039. That is the first date that you are eligible for parole.
I note that the effective total head sentence (including the sentences served since 4 November 2020) is 26 years and 8 months and the effective non-parole period is 19 years.
(3) Pursuant to s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the offender is advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of which he has been convicted. His legal representatives are requested to advise him of the implications of that Act to him.

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – MURDER – guilty plea – joint criminal enterprise – where not possible to find offender committed physical act causing death beyond reasonable doubt or that co-offender did on balance of probabilities – discount for assistance – lengthy criminal history – Bugmy factors – totality – no finding of remorse available on evidence – lesser sentence than co-offender given lower criminality regarding motive and decision – making and stronger subjective case – hardship in custody related to inmate attacks – custody throughout COVID-19 pandemic – mental and physical health concerns – special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(1)(a)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 25D(3)(b), 30E, 44(2), 54B

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Harris v R [2023] NSWCCA 44
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
R v MJ [2023] NSWCCA 306
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Parkes (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 910
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Robert Sloan (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Robinson (Crown)
M Avenell SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Offender)

File Number(s): 2021/94452
Publication restriction: Nil.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

On 29 July 2020, the burnt corpse of Najma Carroll was found in remote bushland near Menai. She was 33 years old at the time of her death. She died from head injuries.
Subsequent investigations…

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 Sloan

Details

AGLC: R v Sloan [2024] NSWSC 952
Case: [2024] NSWSC 952
Decision Date: 02 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the respondent, Sloan, appealed his sentence for murder. Sloan had pleaded guilty to being a party to the murder of a woman, with the Crown alleging he was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with others. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Sloan, considering several factors including the principles of totality, discount for assistance, the Bugmy factors, and the respondent’s criminal history. Given Sloan’s guilty plea and his assistance to the police, the court had to assess the extent to which these factors should mitigate his sentence. Additionally, the court considered the Bugmy factors, which include the offender's participation in the crime, the degree of responsibility, and the extent of their criminal history. The court also examined the totality principle to ensure the sentence was proportionate and did not exceed what would be appropriate for the offence.

The court found that while it could not conclusively determine which offender committed the physical act causing death, it was more likely than not that Sloan's co-offender did. The court recognised that Sloan’s lengthy criminal history and the nature of his involvement in the crime required a significant custodial sentence. However, the court also acknowledged the discount for his assistance and the principles of totality. Despite the absence of evidence showing remorse, the court noted Sloan’s lower criminality regarding the motive and decision-making, as well as the stronger subjective case against his co-offender. The court also considered the special circumstances of Sloan’s time in custody, including attacks by other inmates, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and his mental and physical health concerns. The court balanced these factors, resulting in a sentence that was less severe than that of his co-offender, reflecting the differences in their respective roles and criminal histories.

In conclusion, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Sloan, taking into account all the mitigating and aggravating factors, was imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years. This decision reflected the court's careful consideration of the principles of sentencing, the respondent's assistance, and the totality of the circumstances. The court's detailed analysis ensured that the sentence was fair and proportionate, considering both the nature of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders