Legal Research
Cases
R v Spinks

R v Spinks

Case [2021] NSWSC 649 10 June 2021

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Spinks [2021] NSWSC 649
Hearing dates: 12 May 2021
Date of orders: 10 June 2021
Decision date: 10 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 20 years and 10 months, with a non-parole period of 15 years and 7 months.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - premeditated shooting - 12 gauge shotgun discharged at close range - assessment of objective criminality - aggravating and mitigating factors - whether intention to kill - planning - disregard for public safety - placing another person’s life at risk - where offender the victim of earlier stabbing - where deceased and offender friends - where deceased committed home invasion on offender - knife used - post-traumatic stress disorder - impact on moral culpability - facilitation of course of justice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 18, 21A, 22A, 28, 54A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 191

Cases Cited:
Cargnello v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] NSWCCA 162
Droudis v R [2020] NSWCCA 322
Ghamraoui v R [2009] NSWCCA 111
Isaacs v R (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; 90 A Crim R 587
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
R v Ancuta [2005] NSWCCA 275
R v Feroz; R v Ho; R v Hoang; R v Nguyen; R v Trinh [2020] NSWSC 341
R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202
R v Sumpton (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Z v R [2015] NSWCCA 274

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Matthew Henry Spinks
Representation:
Counsel:
D Scully (Regina)
J Manuell SC (Spinks)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Spinks)

File Number(s): 2018/215162
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

In the early hours of 14 February 2018, Nathan Costello was standing near his car outside of a friend’s home in Unanderra. Melanie Hazell, his partner and the mother of his two teenage children, was sitting in the front passenger seat of the car. Without warning the couple became the victims of a planned and callous shooting that caused Mr Costello’s death and resulted in Ms Hazell’s life, and the lives of their children, being thrown into chaos and darkness.
The shooter was the offender, Matthew Spinks. He was found guilty of murder by a Wollongong jury on Friday, 19 February 2021. At the commencement of the trial on Tuesday, 2 February 2021, Mr Spinks pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Prosecutor rejected his plea. The issue at the trial concerned the offender’s intention. The jury was called upon to decide whether the shooting was no more than an unlawful and dangerous act (which was admitted by Mr Spinks by his plea of guilty to manslaughter) or whether the offender acted with the specific intention to kill or inflict really serious injury. Mr Spinks gave evidence that he only intended to damage Mr Costello’s car.…

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 Spinks

Details

AGLC: R v Spinks [2021] NSWSC 649
Case: [2021] NSWSC 649
Decision Date: 10 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Spinks was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Spinks, was convicted of murder for the premeditated shooting of a deceased person. Spinks, who had previously been the victim of a stabbing, discharged a 12 gauge shotgun at the deceased at close range. The deceased and Spinks had been friends, but the deceased had also committed a home invasion on Spinks, armed with a knife. The court was required to assess the objective criminality of Spinks' actions, taking into account both aggravating and mitigating factors. The central legal issues revolved around whether Spinks intended to kill the deceased, the level of planning involved, and the disregard for public safety demonstrated by Spinks. Additionally, the court had to consider the impact of Spinks' post-traumatic stress disorder on his moral culpability and whether his actions facilitated the course of justice.

The court determined that Spinks had indeed planned the shooting, evidenced by the deliberate choice of weapon and the close proximity at which he discharged it. The court found that Spinks' actions demonstrated a clear intention to kill, as well as a significant disregard for public safety. While Spinks' earlier victimisation and the home invasion by the deceased were relevant mitigating factors, they did not sufficiently reduce the severity of the offence. The court acknowledged Spinks' post-traumatic stress disorder but found it did not significantly diminish his moral culpability. The decision to facilitate the course of justice by turning himself in and cooperating with authorities was also considered, but it did not weigh heavily in mitigation of the sentence.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld Spinks' conviction and sentence, finding that the premeditated nature of the shooting, coupled with the intention to kill and disregard for public safety, justified the severity of the penalty imposed. The court's decision underscored the importance of assessing the totality of circumstances, including both the aggravating and mitigating factors, in determining an appropriate sentence for such a grave offence.

Orders