R v SSA - [2007] NSWSC 1202

CITATION: Regina v SSA & Siose [2007] NSWSC 1202

HEARING DATE(S): 05/02/07-07/02/07, 09/02/07, 12/02/07-16/02/07, 19/02/07; 21/02/07; 26/02/07; 29/06/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 November 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: The juvenile offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of thirteen years, commencing on 27 July 2005 and expiring on 26 July 2018, and a balance of term of five years, commencing on 27 July 2018 and expiring on 26 July 2023. I direct that he serve his sentence as a juvenile offender until he turns twenty-one years of age. ; John Phillip Siose is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of three years and nine months, commencing on 28 September 2005 and expiring on 27 June 2009, and a balance of term of three years, commencing on 28 June 2009 and expiring on 27 June 2012.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: - Sentence - stabbing - young offenders - one found guilty of murder at trial - other pleaded guilty to manslaughter

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 s19(3)(a)

CASES CITED: R v E & B (2006) 164 A Crim R 208
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
SSA (young offender)
John Phillip Siose (offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/00003137 (2006/1112); 2006/00003136 (2006/1111)

COUNSEL: T Baily (Crown)
D Yehia (young offender)
P Young SC (offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Heenan & Co (young offender)
Nikola Velcic & Associates (offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HIDDEN J

2 November 2007

2006/00003137 (formerly 2006/1112) & 2006/0000313 (formerly 2006/1111)

Regina v SSA & Regina v John Phillip Siose
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: These two young men stand for sentence for the killing of Dong Jun Kim, himself a young man, at an amusement parlour in Parramatta in the afternoon of 27 July 2005. One of them was under the age of eighteen at the time and, rather than using his name, I shall refer to him as the juvenile offender. He was found guilty of the murder of Mr Kim after a trial. The other offender, John Phillip Siose, was also charged with murder. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and that plea was accepted by the Crown in discharge of the indictment against him.

Facts

2 The deceased was playing an amusement machine at the parlour in the afternoon in question when the two offenders arrived. Both of them were carrying knives. It seems that they thought it was necessary to do so for their own protection because they were afraid of some men who frequented the area, and it is not suggested that they were carrying them for any aggressive purpose. Nevertheless, the foolishness of their being armed in that way is demonstrated by the tragedy which ensued.

3 The offenders did not know the deceased. They were watching him playing a machine when there was an altercation, in the course of which the…

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 SSA

Details

AGLC: Regina v SSA & Siose [2007] NSWSC 1202
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1202
Decision Date: 2 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved two young offenders who were charged in connection with the stabbing of a third person, who died as a result of his injuries. The first offender, who was tried and found guilty of murder, was the primary focus of this appeal against sentence. The second offender had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced prior to the first offender's trial. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant sought to challenge the sentence imposed upon him.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence did not adequately account for his young age and the mitigating factors present in his case, including his disadvantaged background and the influence of his co-offender. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for young offenders and the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders, noting that their age and potential for rehabilitation must be taken into account. The court acknowledged the severity of the crime but found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence while also considering the appellant's age and circumstances. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The court made no further orders in relation to the appeal.

Orders