(1) Kevin Smith is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 20 years. The Court sets a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 12 January 2022, and an additional term of 5 years commencing on 12 January 2037 and ending on 11 January 2042.
(2) Sequences 1 and 2 on the s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Certificate are remitted to the Local Court at Newcastle on 22 May 2024.
Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – guilty verdict by jury – stabbed in the front upper right side of the chest – where jury rejected defence of self-defence – where no intention to kill – where significant degree of pre-trial disclosure – discount for facilitating the administration of justice – background of substance abuse and violence – sentence imposed
[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 Smith
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Smith [2024] NSWSC 437
Case
[2024] NSWSC 437
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v Smith, the defendant, Smith, was found guilty by a jury of murder, having stabbed the victim in the front upper right side of the chest. The jury rejected the defendant's plea of self-defence, and it was accepted that there was no intention to kill. The case before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various factors including the degree of pre-trial disclosure, the mitigating factor of facilitating the administration of justice, the defendant's background of substance abuse and violence, and other relevant considerations.
The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, as well as the statutory requirements and judicial guidelines. It was necessary for the court to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court found that there was a significant degree of pre-trial disclosure which had facilitated the administration of justice, and that this warranted a discount in sentence. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's background of substance abuse and violence, which, while not excusing the offence, were relevant to the assessment of the defendant's culpability and the appropriate sentence. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment, taking into account all relevant factors.
Following the court's reasoning and analysis, it was determined that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length of the sentence and any parole eligibility conditions to be outlined in the final orders. The court made clear that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account the mitigating factors presented by the defence. The final orders of the court will specify the exact term of imprisonment, along with any other relevant conditions.