R v Staff - [2024] NSWSC 1471

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Staff [2024] NSWSC 1471
Hearing dates: 16 August 2024
Date of orders: 22 November 2024
Decision date: 22 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) For the offence of the manslaughter of Matthew Davis on 21 August 2021, applying a discount on sentence of 25% as required by law, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 3 months. The sentence will commence on 18 May 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 17 August 2026.
(2) The provisions of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) may apply to you, and I notify you accordingly and direct your legal representatives to explain the possible application of that Act to you.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – manslaughter – joint criminal enterprise – where offender went with two other men to where the deceased lived – where offender knew one of the men would “bash people for money” – jury verdict consistent with conclusion there was no intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm but that offender knew an assault would occur – rejection of account (via gaol calls) that the offender only pointed out the house and did not know why the men wanted to go there – callous and cowardly failure to assist the deceased – moral culpability significant in the circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Kukovec v R [2014] NSWCCA 308
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Stephen William Staff (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Keay (Crown)
A Evers (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
Morrisons Law (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/00143617
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 21 August 2021, Matthew Davis, a loved, quiet, kind young man was bashed and left for dead in his home at Lake Illawarra by people who did not know him. He died as a result of head injuries and neck compression, with the forensic pathologist, Dr I’Ons, concluding that Mr Davis was lying on the floor for a period of possibly up to 35 minutes from the time of the first blow, before he died of his injuries. One of the people who went to the house that night was the offender, Stephen Staff.
The offender was arraigned on indictment charging him with the murder of Mr Davis on 22 April 2024. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury. After five days of evidence and concise closing addresses, and after some days of deliberations, on 9 May 2024 the jury found the offender not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter.
It was open to the jury to find the offender guilty of manslaughter rather than murder if they were not satisfied that the Crown had proved its case on murder beyond reasonable doubt. It…

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 Staff

Details

AGLC: R v Staff [2024] NSWSC 1471
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1471
Decision Date: 22 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Staff, the appellant was involved in an incident that resulted in the death of an individual. The appellant had accompanied two other men to the residence of the deceased, with knowledge that one of the men intended to assault individuals for financial gain. The jury found that while there was no intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, the appellant was aware that an assault would take place. The appellant's assertion, made through gaol calls, that he merely pointed out the house and was unaware of the purpose of the visit was rejected by the court. The appellant's moral culpability was deemed significant due to his callous and cowardly failure to assist the deceased during the attack.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentence for the appellant's involvement in the manslaughter of the deceased. Key questions included the degree of moral culpability attributable to the appellant, the nature of his participation in the joint criminal enterprise, and the applicability of mitigating factors such as his lack of intent to cause death or serious injury. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing for manslaughter in the context of a joint criminal enterprise, where the precise roles and intentions of each participant can be complex and difficult to ascertain.

The court found that the appellant's moral culpability was significant, given his deliberate choice to participate in the joint criminal enterprise despite knowing that violence would occur. The appellant's failure to intervene or assist the victim during the assault further demonstrated his callousness and cowardice. The court held that the appellant's lack of intent to cause death or serious injury was a mitigating factor, but it did not absolve him of significant moral responsibility for the outcome. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence would reflect both the appellant's culpability and the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court included a sentence that balanced the appellant's moral culpability with the mitigating factors. The court imposed a term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's significant role in the events that led to the death of the deceased. The sentence also took into account the appellant's lack of intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm, which was acknowledged as a mitigating factor in the overall assessment of his culpability.

Orders